[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: DEFPACKAGE (Version 7)
- To: masinter.pa@xerox.com
- Subject: Issue: DEFPACKAGE (Version 7)
- From: barmar@Think.COM
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 88 00:31:55 EST
- Cc: CL-CLEANUP@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: masinter.pa@xerox.com's message of 6 Dec 88 18:02 PST <881206-180400-7319@Xerox>
In that case, I guess I want to know what the writeup meant when it
said "At most, the existing package will be modified to reflect the
new definition". Is this just a suggestion to implementors about what
they MIGHT do, but not a requirement to do it?
Yes, I think it would be nice if this were reworded to make this
clearer. Assuming I am correct above, this could be something like
"It is undefined but benign [or whatever we decided the appropriate
wording for this situation is] what happens if the new definition is at
variance with the current state of the package; if this has any
effect, it will be no more than updating the existing package to
reflect the new definition."
barmar