[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: MAKE-PACKAGE-USE-DEFAULT (version 2)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Issue: MAKE-PACKAGE-USE-DEFAULT (version 2)
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 88 12:58 EDT
- In-reply-to: <881008-201822-2495@Xerox>
MAKE-PACKAGE-USE-DEFAULT:IMPLEMENTATION-DEPENDENT is okay with me.
I think it might be better to strengthen it and say that the
default for :USE is identical to the use list of the USER package.
Does anyone agree?
In response to Kent's remarks, the issue is whether the default should
be a portable way to get the local extensions, or a portable way to
get the portable language without the extensions. I think either of
those choices is portable and reasonable, it just depends on what you
want to make easier, which probably depends on whether a package is
being set up for use only by a predefined program or for use by user
typein and/or user-written programs, either of which are likely to
expect the local extensions.
Hence I would also accept a proposal to make the default for :USE
continue to be the LISP package, rather than incompatibly changing it,
and add a portable name for the local extensions.