Issue: PACKAGE-FUNCTION-CONSISTENCY (Version 1)

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

Lucid Common Lisp implements the proposed "permissive" behavior except:
  (1) FIND-PACKAGE and IN-PACKAGE require names, based on our reading of
      the fine print in CLtL [extending to permit packages is no problem];
  (2) PACKAGE-USE-LIST and PACKAGE-USED-BY-LIST permit names.

I support this proposal in general; however I have one specific
disagreement with it that needs to be resolved: I think that
extending PACKAGE-NAME, PACKAGE-NICKNAMES, PACKAGE-USE-LIST, and
PACKAGE-USED-BY-LIST to accept names is generally useful; much more
so than is restricting them on the outside chance that open-coded
slot access is a critical performace issue.  Yes, it makes sense to
ask PACKAGE-NAME on a string; e.g., (PACKAGE-NAME "SYS") will be
"SYSTEM".

What do you think?

-- JonL --