[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposals 2, 3, & 4
- Subject: Re: Proposals 2, 3, & 4
- From: shebs%utah-orion@utah-cs.arpa (Stanley Shebs)
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 86 08:23:04 MDT
- Apparently-to: common-lisp@su-ai.arpa
- Distribution:
- Expires:
- Followup-to:
- Keywords:
- Newsgroups: fa.common-lisp
- Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
- References: <RAM.12222507501.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Reply-to: shebs@utah-orion.UUCP (Stanley Shebs)
- Sender:
- Summary:
In article <RAM.12222507501.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU> RAM@C.CS.CMU.EDU (Rob MacLachlan) writes:
>It seems that it would be simpler and less restrictive
>to have a function DESCRIBE-ARGUMENTS which takes a function and a
>stream and prints useful information about how that function may be
>used.
> Rob
I agree. Something like FUNCTION-PARAMETER-NAMES is likely to get
used only for something like DESCRIBE-ARGUMENTS anyway, since a debugger
is going to need a lot more help, for beating on stacks directly etc.
Actually DESCRIBE-ARGUMENTS should maybe be subsumed by DESCRIBE, and
the standard should give a lot more hints about what sort of useful
things DESCRIBE might do.
stan