[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: DEFPACKAGE (Version 6)
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Issue: DEFPACKAGE (Version 6)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 16:08 EDT
My notes from Fairfax meeting...
A straw poll was taken and there was unanimous approval of the
concept of DEFPACKAGE, so it seems very likely this will
Walter: Wants to see a portable definition distributed.
KMP: Notes that one issue is that DEFPACKGE needs to work somewhat
differently when definitions are re-loaded than it did the
first time. That issue would show up in the portable code,
but the proposal is not specific enough to address that.
Perhaps the proposal should be expanded to cover this situation?