[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS (Version 3)
- To: Sandra J Loosemore <sandra%defun@CS.UTAH.EDU>
- Subject: Re: Issue: REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS (Version 3)
- From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 88 18:25:17 CDT
- Cc: "Dan L. Pierson" <pierson%mist@MULTIMAX.ENCORE.COM>, CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Msg of Tue, 18 Oct 88 09:40:02 MDT from Sandra J Loosemore <sandra%defun@CS.UTAH.EDU>
- Sender: GRAY@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
> This looks better, but I feel really uncomfortable with the idea that
> an implementation would be allowed to decide on its own that modules
> which haven't been PROVIDE'd have been loaded anyway.
It makes sense in the scenario where you say (REQUIRE "foo") where you
have defined in some implementation-dependent way what to do to install
"foo", then it would be reasonable to assume that after doing that,
"foo" has now been provided even if there wasn't an explicit PROVIDE
call in one of the files. This would permit a user to define a module
name for a group of files without having to edit a file to add a
For example, on the Explorer, REQUIRE with one argument calls
MAKE-SYSTEM, and MAKE-SYSTEM calls PROVIDE when it is finished.
Can you feel comfortable with permitting that?