[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue DEFPACKAGE
- To: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: issue DEFPACKAGE
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 88 22:28:17 MDT
- Cc: Sandra J Loosemore <sandra%defun@cs>, peck@Sun.COM, Jon L White <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, Wed, 26 Oct 88 23:11 EDT
> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 88 23:11 EDT
> From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
> Finally, what is the motivation for not having DEFPACKAGE setq *PACKAGE*?
> What is the motivation for not having DEFUN call the function?
> That's not a joke, my point is that the two operations of defining
> a package and switching the current package have little to do with
> each other and are rarely done together.
My original impression of what this proposal was for was to introduce
a somewhat cleaner mechanism to do what one currently uses the Seven
Extremely Randoms for. IN-PACKAGE is one of those. If one follows
the style set forth in CLtL, then defining a package and switching the
current package -are- usually done together. I don't have any problem
with DEFPACKAGE not setq'ing *PACKAGE*, I just think the proposal
should make it more clear why it doesn't, and emphasize that
DEFPACKAGE really isn't supposed to be used the same way as the Seven
Extremely Randoms. I was confused and maybe other people are too.