[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


   From: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)
   Date: Fri, 11 Nov 88 09:35:42 MST
   How about wording the proposal to indicate that implementations
   can extend REQUIRE to load files automagically only if the user has
   *explicitly* indicated (using some implementation-specific mechanism)
   which files make up that module?

Hey, I've got an idea!  How about
	 (REQUIRE module list-of-files-which-make-up-the-module) ?

But seriously, I'm not sure what "explicitly" means.  The user has to evaluate
some Lisp expression involving the module name?  What if the underlying
operating system provides some similar concept, is the Lisp allowed to use it
or would it still have to force the user to retype it in the Lisp?  How about
a search-path-based mechanims: is it ok if the user evaluates some Lisp
expression specifying a search path but not mentioning the module name
explicitly?  How about a default search path?  Is that allowed, or must it
start out empty regardless of local cultural conventions?  What about
vendor-provided modules?  Can we continue to tell our users to say (require
'quickdraw) and have that work in the off-the-shelf product, or would they
have to take some additional explicit action to allow this to work?

    but would prevent
       (require "FOO")
   from trying to load some random file named "FOO", which (as I've pointed
   out earlier), may or may not contain the module "FOO".

How about (REQUIRE "FOO" :if-not-present :error)?  Only half-kidding...