[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: Re: Naming
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 5 Feb 88 13:42 EST
- In-reply-to: <880204-165404-1377@Xerox>
Date: 4 Feb 88 16:53 PST
From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
We need to decide by the end of the weekend what to do about
naming. I strongly hesitate to make the change (if it can be said
that one can strongly hesitate). If we make the change I prefer the
terms NAME-<word> over SYMBOL-<word>. I worry that we will make an
ugly mistake in doing this.
To avoid such ugliness, let us leave symbol-class and (setf symbol-class) with a
restriction to symbols.
However, let us take out any restriction about what can be stored/returned from
class-name. Then the dynamic-class hack can work using its own class lookup
mechanism, and class-name can contain the hint about what the class is.
Yes. Only a symbol can be a proper name, and non-symbol values for
class-name are only hints. In a discussion last fall (I think), we had
already decided that class-name was a hint, and wasn't necessarily
always the proper name.
What Danny is proposing here is what I thought all along I was
proposing, however I was too distracted to produce a coherent wording.
I apologize for the digression, and thank Danny for bringing us back to
earth. I never meant to propose some elaborate new naming scheme, only
to propose that the hints returned by class-name need not be symbols.
- Re: Naming
- From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>