[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: implied contracts in the mapping functions?
- To: HEDRICK@RUTGERS, kmp%MIT-MC@MIT-ML
- Subject: Re: implied contracts in the mapping functions?
- From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-TENEX>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1983 19:27:00 -0000
- Cc: Cassels%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-ML, Fahlman%CMU-CS-C@MIT-ML, Common-Lisp%SAIL@MIT-ML
- In-reply-to: The message of 19 Sep 83 16:07-EDT from Charles Hedrick <HEDRICK at RUTGERS>
Date: 19 Sep 83 16:07:49 EDT
From: Charles Hedrick <HEDRICK@RUTGERS.ARPA>
It is dangerous to have a feature that obviously ought to be in a
language not be there, or be there in only half the implementations. No
matter what you say in the manual, people will use it where it works.
I strongly disagree. It is completely unavoidable that some people will
depend on the peculiarities of any implementation. It does not follow
that every peculiarity should be a defined part of Common Lisp that
every implementation must follow. If we are to belive what you are
saying, then EVERY place in the manual that says "it is an error" should
be changed to either say "it signals an error" or else be precisely
defined.