[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Proposals 2, 3, & 4
- To: franz!fizzy!jkf@KIM.BERKELEY.EDU
- Subject: Proposals 2, 3, & 4
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1986 18:18:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 14 Jul 1986 13:14-EDT from franz!fizzy!jkf at kim.berkeley.edu
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
The primitive function would return a sequence something like this
(a b c &optional d e &rest r &key x y &allow-other-keys)
or a keyword signifying that it doesn't have the information.
I don't like this approach at all. It seems to make more work for
everyone and to require that all this information be carried around in
an inefficient and hard-to-parse form.
I am wavering on whether proposal 4 is a good idea in its current form.
Maybe it should be dropped from the standard or replaced with a
semi-standard form that just returns the arglist of a function or macro,
probably as a string. But I think that we want to keep proposal 2 in
its current form as a clean portable way of getting at a function's
external calling conventions.