[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue IN-PACKAGE-FUNCTIONALITY
- To: cperdue@Sun.COM (Cris Perdue)
- Subject: Re: issue IN-PACKAGE-FUNCTIONALITY
- From: email@example.com (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 88 10:28:38 MST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: cperdue@Sun.COM (Cris Perdue), Wed, 7 Dec 88 11:00:24 PST
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 88 11:00:24 PST
> From: cperdue@Sun.COM (Cris Perdue)
> To me, if there is going to be DEFPACKAGE, it is better to just
> acknowledge the problems that exist when compiling files with
> compile-time calls to package effectors rather than retaining the
> current hack half-solution.
I agree with this. If we can't remove the magic compile-time behavior
of the N random package functions, we ought to at least deprecate the
use of this "feature".
To me, there is not much advantage in removing the magic behavior of
some (but not all) of the functions. That is why I would rather see a
macro introduced to do what this proposal wants IN-PACKAGE to do, and
leave IN-PACKAGE itself alone. The best name that I've been able to
come up with for such a macro is WITHIN-PACKAGE.