[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: DEFPACKAGE (version 3)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Issue: DEFPACKAGE (version 3)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 88 16:52 EDT
- Cc: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM, Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, CL-Cleanup@Sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: <8809282019.AA09354@bhopal>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 88 13:19:55 PDT
From: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
re: Also, wherever it currently takes a symbol or a symbol-name (string), it
should just take a string. . . .
I'd certainly be happy with that, but my impression is that moon and kmp
feel it is important to be able to use symbols just for their print-name;
the issue being that case-conversion happens automatically for symbols,
but doesn't for strings.
Just Moon thinks this. KMP is strongly in favor of accepting strings only
because he thinks the issue of stray symbols being accidentally interned
in the wrong package is considerably more important than the issue of making
someone type "FOO" instead of "foo".
(On the other hand, KMP programs about half the time in uppercase and
half the time in lower case and has no particular phobia of seeing uppercase
characters in a mostly lowercase program, so maybe he undervalues the
importance to some people of never seeing an uppercase character anywhere
in their code. :-)
... Note also that many users have discovered the wonderous insensitivity
to package problems that the notations :FOO and #:FOO have. ...
(Only half-serious, I think) Maybe we should permit only unpackaged symbols
or symbols in the keyword package...