[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
What packages contain.
- To: "BACH::GREEK" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, common-lisp <common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA>
- Subject: What packages contain.
- From: David C. Plummer <DCP@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 11:51 EST
- In-reply-to: The message from "BACH::GREEK" <email@example.com>
From: "BACH::GREEK" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Two thing: (1) Your mailer is specifying a completely out-to-lunch date
Date: 0 0 00:00:00 EST
and (2) there is no newline between your header and the first paragraph
of text, which implies the text is still part of the header.
I agree with Dave Plummer. That sounds like the best organization.
LISP has only standard Common LISP stuff, and EXTENDED-LISP (say) has
all other public things. SYSTEM just has system hackery.
I don't think it should be called EXTENDED-LISP. DEC's EXTENDED-LISP
package would not contain the same as Symbolic's EXTENDED-LISP package.
Now, what the USER package should use and what MAKE-PACKAGE should use
by default is still not completely clear.
I agree, as I stated in my last message.
I think USER should get
everything (i.e., use both LISP and EXTENDED-LISP).
Perhaps this is the right default for MAKE-PACKAGE just for consistency's sake.
I disagree. My current reason is that MAKE-PACKAGE is a CL tool to make
CL packages, and EXTENDED-LISP is not part of the default CL packages.
A person writing a layered product can just say to use only LISP.
Continuing... A person writing a layered product on CL need only use
MAKE-PACKAGE, which, after all, is pure CL. A person writing a layered
product based on the extended features of some other package must
explicitly use that package, which, after all, is not pure CL.