[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[not about] Constant Functions
- Subject: [not about] Constant Functions
- From: System Files <SYS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 1988 02:34:00 -0000
Received: from labrea.stanford.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 9 May 88 22:32:56 PDT
Received: by labrea.stanford.edu; Mon, 9 May 88 22:33:04 PDT
Received: from bhopal.lucid.com by edsel id AA25236g; Mon, 9 May 88 22:22:41 PDT
Received: by bhopal id AA14330g; Mon, 9 May 88 22:25:38 PDT
Date: Mon, 9 May 88 22:25:38 PDT
From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, ELIOT@cs.umass.edu, email@example.com
In-Reply-To: David A. Moon's message of Mon, 9 May 88 21:25 EDT <19880510012540.8.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: [not about] Constant Functions
re: Extended the way implied by barmar, it's also a declaration;
see CLtL p158.
I should just not answer this, but read table 4-1 and then resend your
You did read the phrase of my message "Extended the way implied by barmar ..."
didn't you? And you did notice his confession that this extension isn't part
of Common Lisp?
-- JonL --