[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[PARCVAX.XEROX.COM, not PARC-VAX] and Re: symbol-function of non-functions
- To: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM, common-lisp@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: [PARCVAX.XEROX.COM, not PARC-VAX] and Re: symbol-function of non-functions
- From: David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 87 10:00 EST
- In-reply-to: <870126-143634-4459@Xerox>
Date: 26 Jan 87 14:42 PST
There was a misconception in David Plummer's reply that I think should
be cleared up.
Nothing in CLtL requires this to be true.
Inversely, I believe nothing in CLtL requires this to be false. In
private communications with Masinter I "proved" based on 5 assumptions
which we can redistribute if necessary.
Many Common Lisp
implementations do not allow this form, although it is apparently
allowed in some.
Since apparently many people believe this is a property of Common Lisp,
it may be grounds for a "clarification".