[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Issue: DEFPACKAGE (version 3)

To: cl-cleanup@Sail.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Issue: DEFPACKAGE (version 3)
From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
Date: 28 Sep 88 23:42 PDT
Cc: vanmelle.pa@Xerox.COM
In-reply-to: vanMelle.pa's message of 28 Sep 88 17:41 PDT

I think we're very close on this one.

As for Bill's questions:

DEFPACKAGE should in fact do an in-package? In fact, isn't it simply written portably?

I like removing features.

Prev by Date: Issue: DECLARE-FUNCTION-AMBIGUITY (formerly FUNCTION-DECLARATION)
Next by Date: Issue: DEFPACKAGE (version 2)
Previous by thread: Issue: DECLARE-FUNCTION-AMBIGUITY (formerly FUNCTION-DECLARATION)
Next by thread: Re: Issue: DEFPACKAGE (version 3)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread