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

Re: Issue: DEFPACKAGE (Version 7)

Our intent in "at variance" was specifically to make the behavior of
DEFPACKAGE undefined in the example you cited. We specifically did not want
to proscribe that DEFPACKAGE had to resolve conflicts according to "the
normal error handling of the package modification functions", because
DEFPACKAGE, when it occurs at the beginning of a file during compilation,
might have some extra processing associated with it that would make such
"normal error handling" difficult or impossible.

Do you think we need to revise the writeup before ballot to clarify this