COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	∂02-Nov-87  1625	Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	A couple of Things     
C00017 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂02-Nov-87  1625	Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM 	A couple of Things     
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2 Nov 87  16:25:47 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 270325; Mon 2-Nov-87 19:26:34 EST
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 87 19:26 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: A couple of Things  
To: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
In-Reply-To: The message of 2 Nov 87 16:12 EST from Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <19871103002632.5.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

    Date: 02 Nov 87  1312 PST
    From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

    ``1-19 last paragraph before examples: I still think this should be generalized
    to cover relatively separated subgraphs whose common element is not T, as
    I said in earlier comments.''

    I cannot find such an earlier comment.

I looked back through my stuff and only found this.  If there was a longer
elaboration, I missed it while searching.

1-19 third paragraph last sentence: "will be followed by all classes
in T1", append "except t".  The example could actually be generalized
to a join class J that isn't t, provided none of J's superclasses
appear elsewhere in the graph than above J.  Then we have T1 up to
but not including J, followed by T2, ending in J and its superclasses.

This would be a whole lot easier to explain with a picture, but I can't
send you pictures in the network mail.  If the above couple of sentences
don't make sense, send a message and I'll elaborate or phone or something.

    The section on setf functions will disappear when the spec is published,
    and I included it so that readers not familiar with the cleanup
    proposal will have some idea of what's going on.

OK if "published" means really published, rather than distributed to X3J13
this month.  Or we could just cross-reference the cleanup proposal once
that's distributed.  My worry is that lost of people aren't going to be
familiar with the latest developments in Common Lisp even after they are
quasi-official.

    The material on :constructors is commented out, not deleted. I did that
    for global consistency. I don't like to have to answer questions about
    inconsistencies we know we have included.

OK.