[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: common-lisp@su-ai
- Subject: Ballot clarification
- From: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jun 1983 14:55:00 -0000
KMP has asked for a clarification on issue 5B. It seems clear enough to
me, but what I'm asking for is a YES/NO vote on whether the proposed
mechanism looks reasonable enough to you that you could live with it.
Whichever way you vote on this, you are welcome to offer alternative
suggestions that you like better: "Bring back SUB-READ", etc.
The reason that I've phrased it this way is that I'm afraid that this
issue will end up like DLET: 53 different plans and no consensus.
That's fine for DLET, since we can defer the issue, but it would be
awkward not to have a reader until the second edition, so if all the
suggestions diverge, I am trying to get a feeling for whether my
proposal is at least acceptable, if not optimal, in the eyes of this