[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Fahlman@cmu-cs-c
- Subject: Another ballot
- From: Walter van Roggen <Walter.VanRoggen@CMU-CS-A> (C410WV50)
- Date: Sat, 04 Jun 1983 01:45:00 -0000
- Cc: Common-Lisp@SU-AI
A1: yes. But with PARSE-INTEGER to help read data, do we really
need *READ-BASE* so much?
A3: option B. Lisp syntax is complex enough as it is. (perhaps a
surprising thing to say, even discounting FORMAT.)
A5: ok, 0 based
A7: yes, at least get rid of FSET, preferably both. I'd also like to see
SETF renamed to SET, but that seems too much to ask for now.
A9: ok, though I'd prefer getting rid of CHAR and BIT as well
A10: yes, though what arguments should MAKE-RANDOM-STATE take then?
A12: yes iff DEFMACRO has it.
A15: ok, but rename CALL-VALUES-LIMIT to MULTIPLE-VALUES-LIMIT. We must
agree on lower bounds for these values. There should be no bound on
the number of arguments to a function, only on the number of named