[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: common-lisp at sail
- From: RMS at MIT-MC
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1982 05:14:00 -0000
- Sender: RMS at MIT-OZ
It is fine with me if Common Lisp has only named BLOCK, and not named
PROG or named DO. But named PROG and named DO exist on the Lisp
machine, and I think it would be a hassle for me and the users to get
rid of them.
This disagreement is no problem by itself; those constructs can still
exist and not be part of Common Lisp. But I do not want to see other
changes "required" for Common Lisp which would screw up the handling
of named PROG and DO, or be incompatible with their existence.
For example, saying that RETURN is supposed to ignore named blocks
would force a choice between two unpleasant alternatives:
1) named PROG makes two blocks, a named one and an unnamed, which
makes it unanalogous to BLOCK, or
2) many uses of RETURN must be changed.
Can't we please keep down the number of changes that are not VITAL?
I will have to implement every last one of them, and I have lots of
work to do as it is. Adding a new feature is not very hard,
de-advertising an old feature from the manual is not very hard,
but changing what an existing feature does is a real pain.