Re: defstruct, and the :named option

[Howard I. Cannon <HIC%SCRC-TENEX%MIT-MC@SU-DSN>]

In regards to non-portable vs. portable programs like Defstruct, it seems to me
that it's not an all or nothing decision.  When thinking about the Flavor stuff,
I came to the conclusion that what I'd supply would be a piece of portable
code that implemented most of the Flavor system, and a set of well defined and
documented functions that were machine dependent, and had to be reproduced
for the particular machine/implementation.  I guess what I'm saying is that the
abstract structure creation primitives don't necessarily have to be in the
language definition -- they can be in the Defstruct package definition.  I suspect
that there will be many "portable" programs that use this approach.
-------