[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
our votes in the Memorial Day Ballot
- To: fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
- Subject: our votes in the Memorial Day Ballot
- From: Dir LCSR Comp Facility <HEDRICK@RUTGERS.ARPA>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 1983 01:17:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
1. Yes, delete PARSE-NUMBER. We like the idea of a simpler PARSE-INTEGER.
2. Yes, LOOP should create BLOCK NIL
3. Yes, we favor GET-INTERNAL-TIME and GET-REAL-TIME, however:
- we would like better names, e.g. GET-RUN-TIME and GET-CLOCK-TIME
- we would like a function or read-only variable that gives the number
of ticks per second
4. Yes, we agree that macros should not expand to undocumented special forms.
5. We abstain on :ALLOW-OTHER-KEYS
6. No, we do not want to complicate MULTIPLE-VALUES. (Actually, we would
strongly favor simplifying it by removal.)
7. Yes, we agree to eliminate CATCH-ALL and UNWIND-ALL. If Moon can't
think of any use for them, we are sure we won't be able to.
8. Yes, we agree to adding destructuring to DEFMACRO. We are persuaded
that documentation and other program-understanding functions could
be helped if they can easily see what is going on in the macro.
9. Yes, restrict DECLARE and add PROCLAIM. (Alternatively, we would be
happy to forget PROCLAIM. Make DECLARE typed at top level act
10. Yes, restrict SIMPLE-VECTOR.
11. Yes, use (FILL-POINTER) and (SETF (FILL-POINTER...
12. No, we oppose named vectors. They appear to be a half-baked compromise
that we think you will regret. I am sympathetic with the idea of
defining how DEFSTRUCT is to be implemented. We think that you
should either make these a full type, or a documented programming
convention. Named vectors seem to be half-way in between and to
share the disadvantages of both.
13. Yes, put in *READ-BASE*
14. No, we oppose SUB-every read function. There has to be a better way.
And not keywords.... If the combined wisdom of this list can't
come up with a better way, then maybe a month from now...
15. Yes, rename *PRINfoo*
16. Yes, do what Guy wants with floating point formats. (I give him my
proxy to make minor adjustments latter if he has better ideas.)
17. Yes, eliminate MAXPREFIX and MAXSUFFIX.
18. We favor Scott's ideas on package names.
19. Yes, ~:A and ~:S should affect only top-level NIL's.
20. We would accept makig APROPOS and PPRINT return NIL, but would prefer
having them return no values.
21. Yes, make features keywords.