On Nov 15, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
>
> > Implementation-specific features (including declarations) should
> > be implemented as implementation-specific libraries and not be
> > mandated by the report.
>
> Absolutely. I see no way for one to use declarations portably in
> the current draft.
IIUC, the point of including a syntax for declarations is that it will
be possible to write declarations in code and still be able to run it
on different implementations: so the intention is not to use
declarations portably, but rather to put them in the code. Plus,
maybe, some common meaning for popular declarations (for
implementations that support them). This is at least they way they
work in CL.
[Disclaimer: I have *absolutely* *no* *opinion* either way. It's just
that the argument above seems misguided.]
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Received on Thu Nov 16 2006 - 01:54:16 UTC