[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: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (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.