[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
New issue: DEFPACKAGE
- To: Fahlman@c.cs.cmu.edu
- Subject: New issue: DEFPACKAGE
- From: Eric Benson <edsel!eb@labrea.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 88 01:10:57 PST
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: "Scott E. Fahlman"'s message of Sat, 12 Mar 1988 19:46 EST <FAHLMAN.12381856106.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1988 19:46 EST
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
In response to David A. Moon <Moon at STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
This looks good, as far as it goes, and the fact that it has actually
been tested in practice is a big plus -- it tends to give one confidence
that nothign critical has been overlooked.
I'm a bit uneasy about the syntax that you propose for the options. It
would be more compatible with the rest of Common Lisp to use alternating
keywords and arguments. Some users may find the odd syntax of your
DEFPACKAGE to be confusing. Is there some real advantage to the syntax
you propose, or is this just a bit of Zetalisp culture peeking through?
This syntax resembles that used for DEFSTRUCT options, so it does have
a precedent in CLtL.