[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


We've gotten two contrary reports from implementors who have tried it
both ways and come up with different conclusions (you and the TI
people), and a third (Leigh Stoller here at Utah) who's switched from
HOME-PACKAGE to CURRENT-PACKAGE and who now wants to switch back to
HOME-PACKAGE because it's less complicated.  The only conclusion I can
draw is that neither behavior has any great advantages over the other
in practice.

I believe we really do need to say something about how the loader
reconstructs symbols so that it is at least clear that the symbol name
and its package are the only "components" involved in the process (and
that things like the property list are not preserved).  I suppose we
could come up with a much wimpier UNSPECIFIED proposal that says that
if *any* changes at all to the package hierarchy (*package*, which
symbols are imported or exported from a package, its use list, etc.)
are made between compile and load time, it's unspecified where the
loader will put the symbols.