From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: (upgraded-complex-part-type 'rational) ==> ?
Date: 
Message-ID: <67Odne_DBaLvZraiXTWJkw@dls.net>
Is it required by ANSI CL that (upgraded-complex-part-type 'rational)
be type-equivalent to rational?  If so, where does it say that in the
standard?

	Paul

From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: (upgraded-complex-part-type 'rational) ==> ?
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwu18xcj8e.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
"Paul F. Dietz" <·····@dls.net> writes:

> Is it required by ANSI CL that (upgraded-complex-part-type 'rational)
> be type-equivalent to rational?  If so, where does it say that in the
> standard?

Why do you ask?
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: (upgraded-complex-part-type 'rational) ==> ?
Date: 
Message-ID: <uDqdnXTzpvumnrKiXTWJlg@dls.net>
Kent M Pitman wrote:

> Why do you ask?

Brain fart.  I cancelled that post after I made it, but cancels don't
propagate anywhere.

	Paul
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: (upgraded-complex-part-type 'rational) ==> ?
Date: 
Message-ID: <nLidnc4lu6gnmLKiU-KYgw@dls.net>
I wrote:
>  cancels don't propagate anywhere.

Er, everywhere.

	Paul