[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: PACKAGE-CLUTTER (Version 2)
- To: jonl@lucid.com
- Subject: Issue: PACKAGE-CLUTTER (Version 2)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 88 16:09 EDT
- Cc: Scott.Fahlman@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU, KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: <8809282004.AA09299@bhopal>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 88 13:04:19 PDT
To: Scott.Fahlman@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
In-Reply-To: Scott.Fahlman@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU's message of Wed, 28 Sep 88 14:53:08 EDT <8809281858.AA00875@lucid.com>
Subject: Issue: PACKAGE-CLUTTER (Version 2)
Say, you guys have been discussing the LISP-SYMBOL-REDEFINITION issue
under the banner of "Issue: PACKAGE-CLUTTER". Wanna switch?
-- JonL --
I guess I accidentally broadened the issue when I changed some sentence
that said "the system can't provide..." to say "no one can..." or some
such thing. It's just as dangerous for the user to do it as the system,
so the issues are related. Would it make sense to merge the issues as
a single new issue LISP-SYMBOL-DEFINITION? I'd prefer to do that rather
than ask people to talk about only half the subject at a time. If after
more discussion we needed to break it back out into two topics, we could
still do so...