issue IN-PACKAGE-FUNCTIONALITY, version 5

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

re: > Conforming to what?  This statement is incredibly imprecise, since the
    > packagification of symbols depends on more than simply the text of the
    > file.  For example, what do you mean by "all of the symbols in the
    > file"?  Suppose I have a macro that does something like
    >    (foo x)    ==>  (internal-subr (list x))
    > and suppose further I have a file with just the one form (foo 3) in it.
    > Now, is FOO a symbol in the file?  Is INTERNAL-SUBR a symbol in the file?

    I think my statement is at least as precise as the language in CLtL it
    replaces, which also includes the phrase about "all the symbols in the
    file".  If you have some alternative language you would like to propose,
    please do so.

Well, I might love to work on this problem, Sandra, but I do have other
responsibilities.  Yes, I agree that CLtL is "incredibly imprecise"
about the semantics of compiling out symbols; but that is no excuse
to jump from the frying pan into the fire.  [In fact, I don't think
any single issue has caused more trouble amongst even wizard Lisp
users as this one -- the re-internment of symbols into a "new" 
image by a compiled file.]


re: > I think I read this as yet another attempt to resurrect the very 
    > misleading plan of compiling symbols out by package-qualifying each 
    > and every one of them.  

    Ummm, this is almost exactly what the cl-compiler issue
    CONSTANT-COMPILABLE-TYPES says . . .   I
    seem to remember that you were one of the people who argued *for*
    specifying that particular handling of symbols.

Absolutely not!  You must be thinking of someone else.  The last time
this was discussed on Common-Lisp@SAIL, I remember RWK supporting the 
position I held -- and for similar reasons; but not many others did.


-- JonL --