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


There was no response to Moon's version 2. I modified the description
and rationale to emphasize that this is really two separate proposals,
one a clarification, the other a change (allowing strings.)  I added a
few comments to the test cases. [I removed Moon's parenthetical remark
in brackets.] I added an endorsement to the discussion. 

I don't understand this:


"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?"

I tried to imagine a package as the heart of a man and evil as a symbol,
lurking there, but it escaped me....


References:    CLtL p.186


Edit history:  Version 1 Moon 24 Aug 87 
               Version 2 Moon 27 Aug 87 incorporate suggestions from
               Version 3 Masinter 26-Oct-87

Problem description:

The description of the SHADOW function can be interpreted as saying that
the function has no effect, if the symbol is already present in the
package.  This happens if the third sentence in the description ("then
nothing is done") is interpreted as applying to the entire description
rather than just to the fourth sentence.

SHADOW is said to take symbols as arguments, however only the print-name
is meaningful for this operation (that fact is already documented).


1) The SHADOW function always adds the symbol to the
list, even when the symbol is already present in the package. 

2) The first argument to SHADOW is allowed to be or contain strings as
well as symbols. The specification "the print name of each symbol is
extracted" is to be modified accordingly.

Test Case:

;;; SHADOW always adds the symbol to the PACKAGE-SHADOWING-SYMBOLS
list of a package

(make-package 'test-1)
(intern "TEST" (find-package 'test-1))
(shadow 'test-1::test (find-package 'test-1))
(assert (not (null (member 'test-1::test (package-shadowing-symbols
                                           (find-package 'test-1))))))

(make-package 'test-2)
(intern "TEST" (find-package 'test-2))
(use-package 'test-2 (find-package 'test-1))    ;should not error

;;; To test the use of strings in place of symbols
;;; change the third line of the test case to
;;;     (shadow "TEST" (find-package 'test-1))
;;; Note the use of capital letters in the string.


CLtL p. 180 describes a name conflict problem that can occur when
calling the function USE-PACKAGE. The name conflict is between a symbol
directly present in the using package and an external symbol of the used
package. This name conflict may be resolved in favor of the symbol
directly present in the using package by making it a shadowing symbol.
For this to work, SHADOW must add the symbol to the
PACKAGE-SHADOWING-SYMBOLS list even when it is already present in the

Since only the print name of a symbol argument is meaningful, a string
should also be accepted.  This is particularly useful to avoid problems
when compiling code in one package environment and loading it into a
slightly different package environment, where the symbol that was
referred to at compile time may not be present at load time.  This is
particularly important because the symbol referred to by the print name
may be changed by evaluation of the SHADOW form.  A close reading of
CLtL shows that one can already use (shadow '#:bar) in place of (shadow
'bar), to achieve much the same effect as (shadow "BAR").  But the user
should not have to play such games, strings should be accepted.

Current practice:

Symbolics and Spice Lisp add the symbol to the PACKAGE-SHADOWING-SYMBOLS
list, even when the symbol is already present in the package.  Kyoto
Common Lisp, Lucid Common Lisp, and Xerox Common Lisp ignore SHADOW when
the symbol is already present in the package.  It seems likely that we
will find several implementations in each camp.

SHADOW accepts strings in Symbolics Common Lisp.

Adoption Cost:

It should be two one-line changes in one function.

Cost of non-adoption:

Inconsistency among implementations and lack of a clear way to resolve
the name conflict mentioned in Rationale.


Consistency among implementations and fewer mysterious package problems.

Conversion Cost:

Technically this would be an incompatible change to implementations that
do not already behave as proposed, however it is difficult to conceive
of a user program that would require any conversion to cope with the
change. Some users might want to remove kludges that were only necessary
to get around the former misbehavior of SHADOW.


The proposal would remove an unnecessary special case, thus simplifying
the language slightly.


The issue was raised by Dieter Kolb on the Common-Lisp mailing list.

It would be useless for SHADOW to fail to put a symbol that is already
present in the package onto the PACKAGE-SHADOWING-SYMBOLS list.  Moon
believes CLtL intended to describe what is being proposed, but
unfortunately used ambiguous language.

The cleanup committee endorses this proposal.