[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Fahlman%CMU-CS-C@SU-DSN, common-lisp@su-ai
- Subject: Another ballot
- From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW%SCRC-TENEX%MIT-MC@SU-DSN>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jun 1983 15:37:00 -0000
- In-reply-to: The message of 3 Jun 83 02:27-EDT from Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman at CMU-CS-C>
A3: B and C are both OK; no real preference.
A5: Yes. It's not rare to want some single value other than the first.
I see nothing non-intuitive about having it be 0-based; everything is
A6: (No opinion, I haven't been following this issue.)
A7: No. I realize it's a highly arbitrary tradeoff.
A9: No. This is completely redundant; there's no need for it.
A12: I am basically in favor of this. I am especially in favor of this
if we allow list-oriented destructuring in DEFMACRO patterns (which I
think we ought to) so that there's only one kind of destructuring
floating around. The other kind of destructuring is a neato thing but
I'd rather leave it in the yellow pages for now. You should figure out
whether DLET has parallel syntax to LET, and therefore lets you bind
several variables, or whether it's like our DESTRUCTURING-BIND, which
only takes one variable and one destructuring pattern. I'd prefer the
latter, but then the name DLET would suggest the wrong kind of syntax.
(Also, if we keep the name DLET and make the syntax like LET then symmetry
demands a DLET*, which I don't think is something we really need.) So I'd
rather use the latter syntax (one variable), and change the name. I realize
DESTRUCTURING-BIND isn't very good. In fact, the use of the word "structure"
in this context isn't very consistent with the usual CL meaning of "structure",
A15: I quite clearly remember the discussion in which this change was
made. The point was, and still is, that if there is no minimum that
every implementation must support, then no program that uses 2-D arrays
is guarateed to be portable. I think this is a strong and obvious
argument. What was all the flak about: was 63 too big? Steele just
made up that number randomly and we all agreed. It's OK with me if we
change it to 7 or even to 3, but let's keep some minimum.
In fact, by the same reasoning, there ought to be a minimum on the
values of call-arguments-limit and call-values-limit, for the same
Having the variables is probably a good idea anyway.
A17: Yes, definitely.