Re: issue DEFPACKAGE

[David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: Wed, 26 Oct 88 22:28:17 MDT
    From: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)

    > Date: Wed, 26 Oct 88 23:11 EDT
    > From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
    > 
    >     Finally, what is the motivation for not having DEFPACKAGE setq *PACKAGE*?
    > 
    > What is the motivation for not having DEFUN call the function?
    > That's not a joke, my point is that the two operations of defining
    > a package and switching the current package have little to do with
    > each other and are rarely done together.

    My original impression of what this proposal was for was to introduce
    a somewhat cleaner mechanism to do what one currently uses the Seven
    Extremely Randoms for.  IN-PACKAGE is one of those.  If one follows
    the style set forth in CLtL, then defining a package and switching the
    current package -are- usually done together.  

I see.  But the thing is, part of the reason for introducing DEFPACKAGE,
and for removing the ability of IN-PACKAGE to create packages, is that
the style set forth in CLtL is broken and doesn't work.  I guess I've been
saying that for so long now (about five years) that I've forgotten it isn't
intuitively evident.

						  I don't have any problem
    with DEFPACKAGE not setq'ing *PACKAGE*, I just think the proposal
    should make it more clear why it doesn't, and emphasize that
    DEFPACKAGE really isn't supposed to be used the same way as the Seven
    Extremely Randoms.  I was confused and maybe other people are too.

    -Sandra
    -------