[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


    Date: Tue, 7 Apr 87 07:44:26 est
    From: John D. Ramsdell <ramsdell%faron at mitre-bedford.ARPA>

    Multiple returns and optional arguments are interesting
    to discuss, but everybody uses macros.  It seems to me
    that an agreement on macros is much more important.  JAR's
    proposal appears to satisfy most needs for macros.  At first
    I worried about the added complexity of specifying macros, but
    now I think that its good to discourage its use by making it 
    hairy.  Do I understand the lack of discussion to mean that
    there are no objections to JAR's proposal?  If so, let's adopt 
    it and move on.

I believe there are serious objections from Gene Kohlbecker and/or Dan
Friedman, at least.  Gene is off the net, but I'll get in touch with
him.  Perhaps Dan will overcome his shyness and let us know why an
"unhygienic" least common denominator is the wrong thing.