[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


I am quite satisfied with Nick's proposal.  The distinction between FUNCTION
OBJECT and FUNCTION NAME is an important one, and the proposal handles it
in an intuitive way.  The EQL requirement for function objects (but not
function names) seems reasonable as well.  Thanks, Nick, for crystallizing the
concepts we have been discussing.

By the way, I don't consider this proposal an incompatible change to
CLtL.  Rather, it is a clarification which eliminates inconsistencies in the
current specification.

This is, in fact, what we have implemented independently of this discussion.
It is probably close to what most implementations do.

John Diamant
Systems Software Operation	UUCP:  {ihnp4!hpfcla,hplabs}!hpfclp!diamant
Hewlett Packard Co.		ARPA/CSNET: diamant%hpfclp@hplabs
Fort Collins, CO