Re: Issue: REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS (Version 3)

[sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)]

Sigh, I really don't like the idea of having REQUIRE load things, but
I thought there was a compromise being reached here.  It appears that
isn't the case after all.

To summarize my position on this issue, the current definition of
REQUIRE is broken due to the way it tries to load files without
providing the user with any portable way to say which files should be
loaded.  (Passing a pathname as the second argument is not portable.)
It doesn't appear that we will be able to come up with a
DEFSYSTEM-like utility for specifying what files correspond with which
modules in the near future.  Therefore, I think the best solution
would be to either remove REQUIRE entirely, or just to get rid of its
file-loading behavior, whichever is the most acceptible to everybody else.

-Sandra
-------