Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!gat
From: gat@robotics.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Erann Gat)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: STRUCTUREP
Message-ID: <760@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Date: 12 Oct 90 00:55:47 GMT
References: <753@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <27133D6E.715C@marob.masa.com> <2714943B.1332@marob.masa.com>
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 12

In article <2714943B.1332@marob.masa.com>, cowan@marob.masa.com (John Cowan) writes:
> The underlying capability is indeed there; however, the implementation is
> not required to expose it to the user in any systematic way that might
> constrain >how< this capability is provided.

Sorry, I don't see how the requirement to provide structurep to the user
would in any way constrain an implementation.  As you yourself acknowledge
the capability must already exist (mandated implicitly by other parts
of the standard) -  what impact could it have to require that this capability
be exposed in a standard way?

E.