[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: IN-PACKAGE-FUNCTIONALITY (Version 3)
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Issue: IN-PACKAGE-FUNCTIONALITY (Version 3)
- From: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 Dec 88 01:45:46 PST
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM's message of 8 Dec 88 15:24 PST <881208-162922-4855@Xerox>
This could allow improved error checking and modularity, with only
minimal loss of functionality. Any call to IN-PACKAGE which really
needed to demand-create a package could be rewritten as a DEFPACKAGE
followed by an IN-PACKAGE.
I think this part needs some more thought. Maybe the second sentence
doesn't belong in a Rationale. Note that unless the file begins with an
IN-PACKAGE, then the DEFPACKAGE form will be read into totally random
package, doing who knows what sort of damage.
Ideally, every file of a multi-file module should begin with an
IN-PACKAGE form to get "in" that module's package. The exceptions
are files which might as start out (IN-PACKAGE "USER"). For example,
the package creator file might look something like:
(in-package "USER") ;guaranteed to exist, and not be harmful!
(defpackage :phlogiston ...)
Another exception might be the DEFSYSTEM surrogate, which also would
start out in the USER package, and simply load the rest of the files.
-- JonL --