[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
- Subject: Re: Naming
- From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: Thu, 4 Feb 88 17:14 PST
- Cc: RPG@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Fcc: BD:>Gregor>mail>outgoing-mail-1.text
- In-reply-to: <880204-165404-1377@Xerox>
- Line-fold: no
Date: 4 Feb 88 16:53 PST
From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa>
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.
- Re: Naming
- From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>