[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Guy.Steele at CMU-10A
- Subject: /BALLOT/
- From: Kent M. Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>
- Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1982 02:18:00 -0000
- Cc: Common-Lisp at SU-AI
~bnyxnnyyx yyyyy-yyci ymxyns-yx
Notes? * * * * * ** * * (see below)
Sequencing 123456789 0123456789 012345678
(2) SETF -> SET. I think we should do this, but not at this time.
(4) Load Keywords. I would vote YES except:
As suggested by someone when it was proposed, any mention of packages
should be stricken pending the release of a package system specification.
(5) LOOP. As a yellow-pages extension is ok by me. I strongly oppose its
placement in the white pages.
(9) MACROEXPAND. I would vote YES except:
I am uncomfortable with saying that a form returns two
values and then returning only one (letting the rest default to NIL).
Does Common-Lisp specify anything on this? In any case, I would ammend
the (cond ((and (pairp ...) ...) (values (...) t))
to (cond (...) (t (values form nil))) to make it clear that two values
are always returned. If this modification is made, I am happy with this
(15) I have no use for this but have no strong objection.
(22) OPTIMIZE. I would vote YES except:
The use of numbers instead of keywords bothers me. The section saying
which numbers can be which values and how those values will be interpreted
seems to FORTRANesque to me. I think these values should be just keywords
or the tight restrictions on their values should be lifted. The only use
for numbers would be to allow users a fluid range of possibilities.
(23) DECLARE. I also support allowing multiple declare forms at the top of
a bind form. ie,
(LAMBDA (X Y) (DECLARE (SPECIAL X)) (DECLARE (SPECIAL Y))
for ease in macros. Steele's proposed evaluator did this and it wasn't
(26) I haven't thought enough about floating point to comment usefully.
(28) OPEN keywords. I'm postponing judgment on this issue until the
currently active CL discussion on this issue subsides.