[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 1984 10:24 EDT
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
My only remaining question is whether it is worth the hassle to
eliminate the env argument just because it is possible to do so. This
seems to be a gratuitous change (not a clarification) from the published
specification for no particularly compelling reason. It will cause
confusion among implementors (and perhaps a few users) who are not on
this mailing list and who do not hear about this change. Until some
sort of formal means of announcing changes to the spec is set up, we
should probably avoid incompatible changes unless the reason for making
the change is really compelling.
My point of view is that this is a correction of two typographical errors
in the manual, rather than an incompatible change to the language; one place
on page 322 implies that the function that is the value of *applyhook*
receives only two arguments. I could well be wrong.
Regardless of this particular issue, we do need to set up a mechanism for
distribution of corrections to the manual (as opposed to changes to the
language). This topic is missing from the agenda for the Monterey meeting,
but it's certainly more important than some of the other things on that
agenda (perhaps it is subsumed under "procedures for maintaining the CL
standard") and we should talk about it anyway. See you there.
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>