[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: DEFPACKAGE (version 2)
- To: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Issue: DEFPACKAGE (version 2)
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 88 13:36 EDT
- Cc: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM, CL-Cleanup@Sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: <8809201717.AA18425@bhopal>
- Line-fold: No
I've re-read the mail from May and I simply don't buy your arguments.
I don't see any need to change anything in the version 2 proposal.
If you want to write a competitive proposal, that's fine; not only
will I not complain, I'll be enthusiastic that I'm not the only one
working on the issue. However, you'll have to be clearer in your
arguments than in May to convince me that your proposal is
better. I think all your arguments are variations on: using symbols
with package prefixes in a DEFPACKAGE form is more dangerous than
using symbols with package prefixes in other forms. My position
is that DEFPACKAGE is no different from anything else in this respect.