[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: PACKAGE-CLUTTER
- To: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Subject: Re: Issue: PACKAGE-CLUTTER
- From: Scott.Fahlman@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 88 01:20:02 EDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 19 Sep 88 19:40:57 -0500. <2799708057-5084423@Kelvin>
I thought the idea was that the USER package would use the
implementation-dependent package(s), not that the implementation-dependent
features would reside in the USER package.
Sure. Careless wording on my part. I don't see what difference this
makes, however: the point is that there can be symbols accessible in USER
that are not among those named in CLtL. One would hope that each
implementation would document all these sysmbols, but I don't think the
standard has any business requiring this.