[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: PACKAGE-CLUTTER (Version 3)
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Issue: PACKAGE-CLUTTER (Version 3)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 88 04:31 EDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: <880923-011503-3968@Xerox>
A few comments...
Date: 5 Oct 88 14:08 PDT
That is, a program is valid Common Lisp if it assumes that
this is true; for example, FBOUNDP will be false for all
external symbols of the LISP package except those documented
to be functions or macros; BOUNDP will be false for all
those except those documented to be functions or macros,
Don't you mean "variables"?
Eliminate the requirement that the initial Common Lisp system
have a package named "SYSTEM". Specify that implementations may
have several other packages available.
I'm not sure I agree with doing this. The purpose of "SYSTEM" is not so
users can rely on it, but rather so they'll know what -not- to use.
Since some systems have other packages locked up as well, maybe that's
a weak argument. Maybe your package registry is the only way to go...
Clarify that the "USER" package may have additional symbols interned
within it and that it may :USE other implementation-specific packages.
Why not say "USER" is empty but uses other packages, including
implementation-specific ones? I don't see any reason why that couldn't
be trivially made to be true.
#2: Since it is not defined as a variable, type, or function, however,
it may not be bound, defined as a type, or defined as a function,
macro or special form.
"may not be initially bound, ..." would make this consistent with your
desire not to trample on LISP-SYMBOL-REDEFINITION.