[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: DEFPACKAGE syntax
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1988 09:37 EST
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Yes, DEFSTRUCT has a syntax similar to what is proposed for DEFPACKAGE.
In that case, people can see that DEFSTRUCT is so complex that the
simple alternating keyword/value style wouldn't cut it. In DEFSTRUCT,
the structure has its set of keyword values and each slot does as well.
I see no such complexity in DEFPACKAGE, so the question is whether there
is any reason we have to go to a less-familiar syntax in this case.
I'm not going to fight to the death over this. I just thought it was
needlessly confusing and thought I'd raise the issue while there was
still time. On the other side of the balance is the convenience to part
of the Common Lisp community of adopting a syntax compatible with the
DEFPACKAGE they are already using.