[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Interpretation of shadowing [and type of argument to SHADOW]
- To: Jon L White <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Interpretation of shadowing [and type of argument to SHADOW]
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 87 16:52 EDT
- Cc: Commonemail@example.com
- In-reply-to: <8708251851.AA15097@bhopal.edsel.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 87 11:51:21 PDT
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jon L White)
I would like to see SHADOW changed to take strings as
arguments, rather than symbols. More realistically, it should at least be
permitted to take strings as well as symbols.
You're right of course.
A close reading of CLtL shows that one can already use (shadow '#:bar)
in place of (shadow 'bar), to achieve much the same effect as (shadow "bar").
But the user should not have to play such games, strings should be accepted.
Current practice: shadow already accepts strings in Symbolics Common Lisp.