New issue: DEFPACKAGE

[Eric Benson <edsel!eb@labrea.Stanford.EDU>]

   Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1988  19:46 EST
   Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
   From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>


   In response to David A. Moon <Moon at STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

   This looks good, as far as it goes, and the fact that it has actually
   been tested in practice is a big plus -- it tends to give one confidence
   that nothign critical has been overlooked.

   I'm a bit uneasy about the syntax that you propose for the options.  It
   would be more compatible with the rest of Common Lisp to use alternating
   keywords and arguments.  Some users may find the odd syntax of your
   DEFPACKAGE to be confusing.  Is there some real advantage to the syntax
   you propose, or is this just a bit of Zetalisp culture peeking through?

   -- Scott


This syntax resembles that used for DEFSTRUCT options, so it does have
a precedent in CLtL.