[no subject]

[Robert W. Kerns <RWK at MIT-MC>]

    Date: 25 July 1981 09:15-EDT
    From: Jon L White <JONL at MIT-MC>
    To: RWK at MIT-MC
    cc: BUG-LISP at MIT-MC

	Date: Tuesday, 14 July 1981, 15:25-EDT
	From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at MIT-MC>
	Subject: SEND
	In-reply-to: The message of 5 Jul 81 01:12-EDT from Jon L White <JONL at MIT-MC>
	    Date: 5 July 1981 01:12-EDT
	    From: Jon L White <JONL at MIT-MC>
	    (SEND <foo>-CLASS 'PRINT) results in ILOPR.
	    so does the sending of a variety of other msgs, including :PRINT-SELF.
	    Admittedly, the :PRINT-SELF msg might require all those silly extra
	    args that PRINT-OBJECT takes, but why can't the PRINT methods default
	    them to appropriate values?
	      At least, it shouldn't ILOPR, but die more gracefully.
	Why not fix LISP's LSUBR calling sequence, which is at fault here?
	Note that the PRINT method is an OBSOLETE name for :PRINT-SELF.
	Why not just call the function PRINT, which does the defaulting for you?
    I'm not sure what you're suggesting here -- since a PRINT msg is acceptable,
    then why should it be totally equivalent to the :PRINT-SELF msg?
    The latter can take all the extra args it wants, but the former could
    simulate a call to PRINT.

NO!  You cannot use the name PRINT.  It is already used, and should
never have been reused to mean what :PRINT-SELF means.  When the LISPM
people finally realized this they went to :PRINT-SELF, which I hadn't
wanted to do until then because I didn't want to introduce gratuitous
incompatibility.

(SEND STREAM 'PRINT OBJECT)

"simulates" (PRINT OBJECT STREAM).  "Implements" is more accurate, actually.

I absolutely do not understand and cannot imagine (so please tell me like I
asked) why you don't just want to call the function PRINT?