[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: IN-SYNTAX (Version 1)
- To: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- Subject: Issue: IN-SYNTAX (Version 1)
- From: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 88 13:59:17 PDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, CL-Compiler@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman's message of Fri, 21 Oct 88 14:01 EDT <881021140158.2.KMP@BOBOLINK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
This issue is far too narrowly focused right now. For example,
-- I would *strongly* favor the name IN-READTABLE over IN-SYNTAX; the
analogy is that IN-PACKAGE sets *PACKAGE*. Alternatively, IN-SYNTAX
would have to jointly handle *READ-BASE* and *PACKAGE* as well as
-- The change suggested for IN-PACKAGE in the IN-SYNTAX:NEW-MACRO proposal
(1) acceptance of the more radical IN-PACKAGE-FUNCTIONALITY:SELECT-ONLY
proposal, or at least eliminating the :use and :nicknames arguments;
(2) acceptance of the Cl-compiler's EVAL-WHEN-NON-TOP-LEVEL proposal.
While I favor both of these pivotal proposals, one might not want to
get this issued hung up over them.
-- The rebindings of syntax parameters like *PACKAGE* and *READ-TABLE* by
LOAD and COMPILE-FILE are currently directed towards the perpetuation of
a horrible loophole; binding to "the current" values encourages the kind
of viewpoint mistakes that occur frequently even to fairly compotent
In short, we would all be better off if LOAD and COMPILE-FILE started out
in a ***known*** configuration. I would suggest binding *READ-BASE* to 10,
*PACKAGE* to USER, and *READTABLE* to a value like (copy-readtable nil).
The MIMIMAL proposal -- assuming the name change -- is nearly
uncontroversial, and wouldn't preclude subsequent embellishments.
How about adding *READ-BASE* to it, and considering more standard
-- JonL --