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


re: Suppose we said that REQUIRE uses an implementation-defined registry of
    module names and actions to be performed, if the implementation provides
    such a feature, . . . 

Well, that is more-or-less what CLtL says now for the case when the second
argument "is NIL ..." (CLtL, p188).  Since the force of this proposal is to 
retract any _standard_ way to hook REQUIRE into LOAD/DEFSYSTEM, then it 
would still be OK for an implementation to extend REQUIRE in an essentially 
upwards compatible way.  The point you are trying to make, if I read it 
right, is that previously this "essentially upwards compatible" way was 
applicable to forms like (REQUIRE <module>), but now would only be applicable 
to those like (REQUIRE <module> <more-stuff>).  How serious a problem is 
this change?

-- JonL --