[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[adjustable arrays?] More FORMAT
- To: edsel!bhopal!jonl@navajo.stanford.edu
- Subject: [adjustable arrays?] More FORMAT
- From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@ALDERAAN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 87 13:17 EDT
- Cc: common-lisp@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: <8705210227.AA03071@bhopal.edsel.uucp>
Date: Wed, 20 May 87 19:27:34 PDT
From: edsel!bhopal!jonl@navajo.stanford.edu (Jon L White)
Isn't this a bug? It certainly provides a loophole for non-portable code
that isn't reasonably detectable as non-portable.
No. As Fahlman explained clearly in an earlier message, providing
extensions that make it harder to determine portability is in no way a
"bug" or "violation of Common Lisp".