Issue: DEFPACKAGE (version 5)

[Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>]

re: I suggest that the :INTERNAL option be renamed :INTERN.

Hmmm, you've indeed exposed a serious discompatibility in nomenclature
style.  But I think I'd prefere to see the :EXPORT option renamed to
be :EXTERNAL rather than introduce a gratuitously new keyword [note
that symbols present in a package must be either :INTERNAL or :EXTERNAL.]

Anyone else on CL-Cleanup have a preference?


re: The rest of the question is whether using the :LISP package is done
    in the MAKE-PACKAGE, or lastly, in the (USE-PACKAGE). 

If the DEFPACKAGE form doesn't specify a :USE option, then the obvious
thing to do is to default it exactly the same as MAKE-PACKAGE would.  
[Incidentally, the name of the relevant issue on this topic is something 
like MAKE-PACKAGE-USE-DEFAULT -- PACKAGE-CLUTTER is a separte issue].


re:                                            . . . Like all USE'ing
    this should be deferred until after the shadowing is done, no?

Ooops, I guess you're right.  Shadowing that creates new symbols isn't
important; but shadowing that in effect "blocks" the inheritance of two 
different symbols with the same name must be done before the "using".
So the package should be created with a :use list of NIL, then the
two "shadowings" should be done (if any), then the :IMPORT and :INTERNAL
ones done, and then finally the :EXTERNAL.


re: Clarify that the order of the clauses in the source code has no effect.

Right! good point.  Indeed this will have to go in the ultimate version.


re: Also, it says re: side-effects "ie, no IN-PACKAGE is done", 
    clarify that this does not proscribe an implementation like: ...

I guess the more clear way to say what was intended here is that the
evaluation of a DEFPACKAGE form does not change the value of *package*.

I'll make another version "soon", to incorporate your "nits" and those
of Sandra and myself.



-- JonL --