[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: KILL-PACKAGE (Version 1)
- To: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Issue: KILL-PACKAGE (Version 1)
- From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Oct 88 17:46:55 PDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman's message of Fri, 30 Sep 88 17:17 EDT <880930171700.1.KMP@GRYPHON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Oh, foo, I'm afraid this will have to be called DELETE-PACKAGE.
The name DELETE-PACKAGE was reached by consensus on the common-lisp
mailing list around late spring 1985, and Lucid Common Lisp has had
it ever since. VAXLISP version V2.2 also uses this name.
It is also one of Guy Steele's "Clarifications" from 6-Dec-85
It was also on the hardcopy sheet of "possible proposals of concern
to Lucid" that I handed out to members of the subcommittee present
at the PaloAlto meeting earlier this year [but indeed, you weren't
bodily present -- I seem to remember a telephone and speaker phone
-- so maybe you didn't get a copy.]
Now as to the operation of DELETE-PACKAGE, it differs from your
proposal on the matter of what to do when some other packages are
"using" the one to be deleted. Steele says "signal an error";
Lucid Common Lisp signals a continuable error, and going on will
remove the links.
Although LCL signals an error if the argument isn't a package, it
silently returns NIL if the argument is an already de-registered
package. Eric Benson convinced me at one point in time that all
the the deletors should simply return NIL if they can't do their
deletory action; this includes giving it totally wrong data.
How would you feel about that approach?
-- JonL --