Re: defaults

From: tim finin <>
Subject: Re: defaults
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:44:04 -0500

> I think the only answer to providing some support for defaults is to do it
> they way it's been done in KL-TWO (as I recall) and Classic.  The idea was,
> if I remember right, to include conventions for providing defaults that
> was outside the core of the language and for which no semantics was given.

My memory may be failing, but I don't remember any support for defaults in
any version of Classic.  It would be possible to achieve some of the effect
of defaults by using procedural attachment in Classic, but that would
violate the procedural attachment contract, unless all that was done was a
kind of input completion.

> Tim


Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 12:07:16 UTC