[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Results of ballot A
- To: Fahlman%CMU-CS-C@SU-DSN
- Subject: Re: Results of ballot A
- From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW%SCRC-TENEX%MIT-MC@SU-DSN>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jun 1983 15:58:00 -0000
- Cc: EAK%MIT-MC@SU-DSN, common-lisp@SU-AI
- In-reply-to: The message of Sun, 5 Jun 1983 15:41 EDT from Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C>
Well, likewise, if I write a program that loops four billion times calling
CONS each time, that doesn't violate the Common Lisp standard in any way
at all, yet it might reasonably be expected to fail in some implementations.
So no implementation can possibly be valid.
The intent of the requirement about minima for the maximum array size
is presumably to make sure that the implementation can REPRESENT such
arrays, even though attempting to CONS one at any time might run you out
of free storage. I'm not sure how to phrase this in a completely clear
way for the manual, but I don't think that getting rid of the 1024 thing
is necessarily valid.