[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Proposal #1 - minor revision
- To: Masinter.pa@XEROX.ARPA, Common-Lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- Subject: Proposal #1 - minor revision
- From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 86 13:31 EDT
- In-reply-to: <860713-214849-1667@Xerox>
Date: 13 Jul 86 21:48 PDT
3) declarations about safety shouldn't affect the operation
of correct programs.
In this situation, any error in class #2 would violate principle (3).
That's a very intersting point. I believe that that answer is that
principle (3) should really read as follows:
3) If there are two correct Common Lisp programs, that are identical to
each other except for the presence or absence of safety declarations,
then they should behave identically.
In the case of class #2 errors, there are programs which are valid
Common Lisp programs when safety is declared to be 2 or more, but which
are not valid Common Lisp programs otherwise. Under this
interpretation, principle (3) is not violated. The presence or absence
of the declaration is what makes the program valid.