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

Re: More FORMAT

To: Don Morrison <DFM%JASPER@live-oak.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: More FORMAT
From: Richard Berman <berman@vaxa.isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 May 87 11:55:34 PDT
Cc: common-lisp@sail.stanford.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 20 May 87 01:01:00 -0400. <870520010156.3.DFM@WHITBY.PALLADIAN.COM>
Posted-date: Wed, 20 May 87 11:55:34 PDT

As someone else mentioned, it can be more than useful to know that something
is causing an array to grow.  It seems reduntant to me to have an :adjustable
keyword if there are no clear semantics to :adjustable nil, only to
:adjustable T.  Especially when :adjustable (non-nil) == :adjustable nil.

Or perhaps we need a :non-adjustable keyword, just to keep our semantics
consistent, where :non-adjustable T means "definitely" non-adjustable, and
:non-adjustable nil means "maybe non-adjustable"?

RB

Follow-Ups:
- Re: More FORMAT
  - From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>

References:
- Re: More FORMAT
  - From: Don Morrison <dfm@JASPER.PALLADIAN.COM>

Prev by Date: DISASSEMBLE, et all return values
Next by Date: [no subject]
Previous by thread: Re: More FORMAT
Next by thread: Re: More FORMAT
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread