Re: GD/OD incompatibility of copy-sequence for the value #f

> Chris Page wrote:
>
> I recommend we think about making unsupplied?() a formal part of the
> language, with some sort of standard syntax for optional keywords that
> doesn't involve a visible $unsupplied value.

I' read the following phrase in the drm
   <http://www.opendylan.org/books/drm/Libraries>:

    Each library contains an implicitly defined module whose name
   is dylan-user. Within this module, all the bindings specified by
   the Dylan language are accessible using their specified names.
   Additional implementation-dependent bindings may also be
   accessible from this module.

What does the phrase "Additional implementation-dependent bindings may
also be accessible from this module." mean?

Wouldn't that offer a possibility to make for example unsupplied a
formal part of the dylan spec.

I think it was Bruce how wrote once dylan-spec is dylan-drm plus
common-extension. Reading this DRM section above I would say is allow
to come up with the following solution to integrate "formal drm parts":

     <dylan-user> is <dylan> plus especially <formal-part-extensions>.

pet-ro