TYPE-SPECIFIER-ABBREVIATIONMEMBER, MOD, NOT, OR, SATISFIES, and VALUES (which are documented as list form type specifiers in CLtL but omitted from table 4-1) to be abbreviated to their atomic form? What about the EQL type specifier?EQL, MEMBER, NOT, OR, SATISFIES, and VALUES type specifier lists may not be omitted or be given as *. Clarify that these symbols are not standard type specifier symbols.
Clarify that the argument to MOD may be omitted or given as *, and that (MOD *) or simply MOD is equivalent to (INTEGER 0 *) (which also happens to be the same as UNSIGNED-BYTE). Add MOD to the list of standard type specifier symbols.
Rationale for proposal ONLY-MOD:
It's not clear what the abbreviated forms of AND, EQL, MEMBER, NOT, OR, SATISFIES, and VALUES would mean.
CLtL defines MOD in terms of the INTEGER type specifier, which already has a well-defined meaning when given unspecified arguments. Also, MOD is the only type specifier listed in the section "Type Specifiers That Abbreviate" that is not now a standard type specifier symbol, and treating all abbreviating type specifiers consistently seems better than making a pointless exception for MOD.
EQL, MEMBER, MOD, NOT, OR, SATISFIES, and VALUES type specifier lists may not be omitted or be given as *. Clarify that these symbols are not standard type specifier symbols.
Rationale for proposal NONE:
It's not clear what the abbreviated forms of AND, EQL, MEMBER, NOT, OR, SATISFIES, and VALUES would mean.
While MOD could be assigned a reasonable meaning, adding it to the list of standard type specifier symbols is a pointless change to the language.
ONLY-MOD but other people have said "yuck!" about it. Is getting rid of MOD altogether a practical alternative? -------