[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue IN-PACKAGE-FUNCTIONALITY
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: issue IN-PACKAGE-FUNCTIONALITY
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 21 Nov 88 16:41 PST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: cperdue@Sun.COM (Cris Perdue)'s message of Thu, 13 Oct 88 16:00:42 PDT
My belief is that we can fix the "problem" stated in this issue--namely
that the current dual purpose of IN-PACKAGE reduces error checking--by
submitting a proposal as follows:
a) this proposal should say only:
Eliminate the ability of IN-PACKAGE to create a package on demand.
Eliminate the :NICKNAMES and :USE arguments to IN-PACKAGE, since they
are no longer needed.
b) the DEFPACKAGE issue itself should contain the phrase
"Clarify that DEFPACKAGE is the preferred way to declare a package,
and MAKE-PACKAGE is the preferred way to construct a package at runtime."
c) The proposal
"Require IN-PACKAGE to signal an error if the package does not exist."
should be changed; instead, the results are unspecified. Note that
implementations of CLtL might indeed create the package. This is exactly
because of the compatibility issue.
d) the proposal
"Eliminate the compile-time processing requirement for all package-related
functions except IN-PACKAGE and DEFPACKAGE."
should be withdrawn at this time to be dealt with more uniformly by the