[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: PACKAGE-CLUTTER (Version 2)
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Issue: PACKAGE-CLUTTER (Version 2)
- From: Scott.Fahlman@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 88 14:53:08 EDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 28 Sep 88 12:12:00 -0400. <880928121218.6.KMP@GRYPHON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
I wasn't really thinking about this issue, but I'd be happy if you
couldn't have global definitions of LIST, MEMBER, etc. or SPECIAL
bindings of them. But it's ok with me if you have lexical bindings of them.
Would that satisfy you. Does that seem to inconsistent to anyone?
It would satisfy me to say that can't be proclaimed special (they're
spelled wrong for that anyway -- not surrounded by stars), and that it is
an error to special-bind any of these. I'm wary of the cost is we say
"signals an error".
As for global bindings, it depends on what that "global" ends up meaning.
I can't think about that yet, since I have not totally internalized the
implications of the various proposals flying around.