[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More FORMAT
- To: Don Morrison <DFM%JASPER@live-oak.lcs.mit.edu>
- Subject: Re: More FORMAT
- From: Richard Berman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 87 11:55:34 PDT
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 20 May 87 01:01:00 -0400. <870520010156.3.DFM@WHITBY.PALLADIAN.COM>
- Posted-date: Wed, 20 May 87 11:55:34 PDT
As someone else mentioned, it can be more than useful to know that something
is causing an array to grow. It seems reduntant to me to have an :adjustable
keyword if there are no clear semantics to :adjustable nil, only to
:adjustable T. Especially when :adjustable (non-nil) == :adjustable nil.
Or perhaps we need a :non-adjustable keyword, just to keep our semantics
consistent, where :non-adjustable T means "definitely" non-adjustable, and
:non-adjustable nil means "maybe non-adjustable"?