[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Charles Hedrick <HEDRICK@RUTGERS.ARPA>
- Subject: do-xxx-symbols
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
- Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1985 03:24:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 4 Mar 1985 21:50-EST from Charles Hedrick <HEDRICK at RUTGERS.ARPA>
- Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
Can we get an authoritative statement about what is covered by
DO-SYMBOLS and DO-EXTERNAL-SYMBOLS, and about whether duplicates and
shadowed symbols should be removed?
Well, I think that the machinery for issuing authoritative statements is
pretty rusty right now. I hope that we will soon have some sort of duly
constituted authority, but right now all we have is the ad hoc executive
committee of which I am the ad hoc chairman.
Hedrick's note points out that the description in the manual is
ambiguous at best. OK. I wrote most of that (with input from Moon and
Steele, among others) and I'm sure that DO-SYMBOLS was meant to include
symbols inherited from used packages. It never occurred to me that
explicit IMPORT statements could set up a situation in which a symbol
might show up twice unless you go to a lot of trouble to prevent this.
I also didn't think about shadowed symbols.
In my earlier note, I sent out my view of how to patch the existing
description. This is my view of "how it ought to be" rather than "what
the manual says". Does anyone object to adopting this as the "official"
interpretation? The only thing I'm uneasy about is letting DO-SYMBOLS
generate shadowed symbols, but I don't see any good alternative.