[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS (Version 5)
- To: Jon L White <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Issue: REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS (Version 5)
- From: Dan L. Pierson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 88 11:25:37 EST
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 09 Dec 88 17:34:40 -0800. <8812100134.AA07293@bhopal>
You meant DEFSYS, of course. Proof in point that it is DEFSYSTEM, not
REQUIRE, that is currently not in a portable state.
I disagree in that I think both are currently not in a portable state.
In case any of this argument has given people the wrong impression, I
would strongly support almost any reasonable proposal for adding a
portable DEFSYSTEM to the standard. (I haven't put one forward
because it seems that it would have no chance). The history of Unix
for the last decade or so is a perfect demonstration of the tremendous
advantages of such a facility even if the facility itself is far short
While simple, standard DEFSYSTEM would be a great aid to portable CL
software distribution, it needn't compete with implementors superior
proprietary system definition packages at all. Since the prime goals
of a standard DEFSYSTEM would be portability, simplicity, and minimum
necessary functionality, it should be simple to enhance any of the
proprietary packages to cons up a portable DEFSYSTEM file when the
time came to distribute the software.