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

Issue: IN-SYNTAX (Version 1)

This issue is far too narrowly focused right now.  For example,

-- I would *strongly* favor the name IN-READTABLE over IN-SYNTAX; the
   analogy is that IN-PACKAGE sets *PACKAGE*.  Alternatively, IN-SYNTAX
   would have to jointly handle *READ-BASE* and *PACKAGE* as well as

-- The change suggested for IN-PACKAGE in the IN-SYNTAX:NEW-MACRO proposal 
    (1) acceptance of the more radical IN-PACKAGE-FUNCTIONALITY:SELECT-ONLY
        proposal, or at least eliminating the :use and :nicknames arguments;
    (2) acceptance of the Cl-compiler's EVAL-WHEN-NON-TOP-LEVEL proposal.
   While I favor both of these pivotal proposals, one might not want to
   get this issued hung up over them.

-- The rebindings of syntax parameters like *PACKAGE* and *READ-TABLE* by 
   LOAD and COMPILE-FILE are currently directed towards the perpetuation of 
   a horrible loophole; binding to "the current" values encourages the kind
   of viewpoint mistakes that occur frequently even to fairly compotent 

In short, we would all be better off if LOAD and COMPILE-FILE started out 
in a ***known*** configuration.  I would suggest binding *READ-BASE* to 10,
*PACKAGE* to USER, and *READTABLE* to a value like (copy-readtable nil).

The MIMIMAL proposal -- assuming the name change -- is nearly 
uncontroversial, and wouldn't preclude subsequent embellishments.
How about adding *READ-BASE* to it, and considering more standard
default values?

-- JonL --