[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Packages & Compiling
- To: "Robert W. Kerns" <RWK@SCRC-YUKON.ARPA>
- Subject: Packages & Compiling
- From: Rob MacLachlan <RAM@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1987 23:08:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU, thomas.gross@SAM.CS.CMU.EDU
- In-reply-to: Msg of 13 Jan 1987 08:21-EST from Robert W. Kerns <RWK at YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Tuesday, 13 January 1987 08:21-EST
From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Re: Packages & Compiling
... Dumping should be kept strictly analogous to printing,
and loading to reading, so far as package-prefix hacking is
concerned.
This is a reasonable way to dump symbols, but it isn't obvious to me
that it is the only correct way. In fact, it would have made no
difference in my example, since I was assuming that X wasn't
accessible in the current package. It is a question of how far we
require implementations to go in allowing changes in the package
environment. I think an argument can be made for requiring a more strict
equivalence, which would still allow your interpretation to be legal.
Rob