Re: Issue: REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS (Version 5)

[Dan L. Pierson <pierson@mist.encore.com>]

    You meant DEFSYS, of course.  Proof in point that it is DEFSYSTEM, not
    REQUIRE, that is currently not in a portable state.
    
Of course.

I disagree in that I think both are currently not in a portable state.

In case any of this argument has given people the wrong impression, I
would strongly support almost any reasonable proposal for adding a
portable DEFSYSTEM to the standard.  (I haven't put one forward
because it seems that it would have no chance).  The history of Unix
for the last decade or so is a perfect demonstration of the tremendous
advantages of such a facility even if the facility itself is far short
of perfection.  

While simple, standard DEFSYSTEM would be a great aid to portable CL
software distribution, it needn't compete with implementors superior
proprietary system definition packages at all.  Since the prime goals
of a standard DEFSYSTEM would be portability, simplicity, and minimum
necessary functionality, it should be simple to enhance any of the
proprietary packages to cons up a portable DEFSYSTEM file when the
time came to distribute the software.