[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Aaron Larson's comments
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 89 08:41:43 MST
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)
> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 89 00:20 EST
> From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
> pg 2-11, under property list:
> also, in last (single sentence) paragraph. what does it mean
> "initially"? Does this imply that all CL defined symbols must have null
> plists? Or is this just a property of MAKE-SYMBOL?
> This sounds like a genuine hole in the specification that needs to go to
> the committee. Of course I think it's just a property of MAKE-SYMBOL,
> but some others might think the reverse. PACKAGE-CLUTTER:REDUCE seems
> to be on my side.
I think this is just a mistake in transcription. The source of this
statement appears to be on CLtL p 164: "When a symbol is created, its
property list is initially empty." I don't see a contradiction in
allowing implementations to hang properties off of symbols in the CL
package *after* those symbols have been created.
It looks to me like the transcription was accurate, actually. I think the
problem is the vague use of "initially". Initially until what situation
occurs? For instance, is DEFUN allowed to put on a property? Is INTERN
allowed to put on a property? Is PRINT of a symbol allowed to put on a
property? I don't think these questions were ever really resolved, although
there may have been a cleanup issue that I don't remember right now. Was
there some discussion about how some implementation (KCL perhaps?) used
properties in a way that some people thought should be forbidden? Like
kept the home-package on the property list or something?
Actually I'm willing to drop this and let the specification just stay
ambiguous, as I don't think this issue has much practical importance.