[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: EVAL proposal
> Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 14:38:44 -0400
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> In a message dated Mon, 18 May 1992 10:26:29, Bill Rozas outlined
> a "compromise" proposal for eval. It seems to me that this is basically
> the first installment of a two-part effort to get first-class environments
> into a R^nRS, sort of like laying down the tracks before the locomotive
> rumbles by. I am *not* suggesting that there is anything wrong with this
> approach, but I would prefer to see this proposal be considered within
> its appearent context, rather than as if it has been made independent
> of the particulars of first-class environments.
> Please do not be so insulting, and keep your attempts to read between
> the lines to yourself.
I did not intend to be insulting. I have the right to suggest my
interpretation of a proposal, and I did. I also tried to make explicit
that I did not find anything "covert" about it, ["I am *not* suggesting
that there is anything wrong with this approach ..."]. I still think
that this proposal is intimately tied to the particulars of first-class
environments, and therefore should be considered within that context.
I could be wrong at this assessment, but it is neverthaless intended to
be a technical assessment, not a personal or political one.
I have appearently offended Jinx with my message, by appearing to
question his integrity. I sincerely apologize. I wish to suggest, even
by poor wording or omission, that there was anything "covert" about
his proposal, nor was there any questioning of his integrity.
Information is in the mind of | electric: email@example.com
the beholder. - R. Jackendoff | ph: 736 2100 x 33976