[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Proposal #7 Status: TYPE-SPECIFIER-P
- To: "David C. Plummer" <DCP@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
- Subject: Proposal #7 Status: TYPE-SPECIFIER-P
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1986 03:44:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 28 Jul 1986 11:10-EDT from David C. Plummer <DCP at QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
It returns T if it is a meaningful second argument to TYPEP and NIL if
not. Is that specific enough?
No. "Meaningful" covers a lot of ground, some of it undecidable.
But Steele's proposal IS specific enough, in my view.