[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Dan Carnese <Carnese@SPAR-20.ARPA>: proposal]
- To: Ram@C.CS.CMU.EDU
- Subject: Re: [Dan Carnese <Carnese@SPAR-20.ARPA>: proposal]
- From: Dan Carnese <CARNESE@SPAR-20.ARPA>
- Date: Fri 4 Sep 87 10:15:49-PDT
- Cc: cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <RAM.12331715786.BABYL@>
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SPAR-20.ARPA with TCP; Thu 3 Sep 87 11:18:03-PDT
Received: ID <RAM@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Thu 3 Sep 87 14:18:04-EDT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1987 14:17 EDT
To: Dan Carnese <CARNESE@SPAR-20.ARPA>
Subject: [Dan Carnese <Carnese@SPAR-20.ARPA>: proposal]
In-reply-to: Msg of 2 Sep 1987 22:25-EDT from Dan Carnese <CARNESE at SPAR-20.ARPA>
Actually, having the defining form export the symbol from its home
package is more problematic than exporting from the current package.
Consider a code fragment like:
(in-package 'a :use '(lisp b))
(defun-exported b::foo ...)
What package is the following "foo" in? Obviously the DEFUN-EXPORTED
and the "foo" could be in the same form, so under some circumstances,
that "foo" couldn't possibly refer to B:FOO, yet if the compiler
happened to process the DEFUN-EXPORTED before the "foo" was read, then
it would be B:FOO.
To say that these things are "just problems in the current language
definition" doesn't avoid the problem. Adding new langauge features
is language design, and a language designer must consider how each
language feature will affect his ability to properly define the
language. I am suggesting that this feature would significantly
complicate the language definition for what seems to me to be little
Sorry, but I'm still not clear on how this extension makes the situation
any more complicated. What I understand you to be saying is that the
semantics of your example would not be well-defined in the case where these
are not top-level forms. Of course, you're right. But since any code
involving the new constructs can be expanded into existing constructs
(e.g., by replacing the defun-exported with a defun followed by an export),
the proposal doesn't introduce any new kinds of problematic situations.
Thus, it is difficult to argue that the language definition would be made
more complicated by having such expansions predefined.
With regard to the naming issue that Scott raised, the use of "-exported"
as a suffix seems quite reasonable. I'm happy to accede to a change that