[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
features
- To: Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA, common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- Subject: features
- From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 85 18:32 EDT
- Fonts: CPTFONT, CPTFONTB, CPTFONTI
- In-reply-to: <FAHLMAN.12119198633.BABYL@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
- Reply-to: dlw@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA
I agree with you and Moon. Let them be keywords. The namespace for
packages is already flat; if we are not dealing with conflicting package
names then there is no need to deal with conflicting feature names. The
language is hairy enough as it is.
- Follow-Ups:
- Features
- From: David C. Plummer in disguise <DCP@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
- References:
- features
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>