[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: "Bernard S. Greenberg" <BSG@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
- Subject: keywords
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1985 14:56:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 4 Dec 1985 09:25-EST from Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG at SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
Symbolics Common Lisp relies heavily on the property lists of keywords.
Given that a keyword is "an indicator that means X in context Y",
it is right reasonable that context Y might want to hang properties off
of it to implement that.
OK, I guess I accept that this is not so terrible a thing to do. If the
property names are package-specific, it shouldn't bother them that they
are sharing the same package-neutral keyword, since the different uses
still have a way of staying out of each other's way. It strikes me as a
bit unclean, but maybe that's just that I like the abstraction of a
keyword as a pure token.
I would still be inclinded to holler at anyone naming a function :FOO,