[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
When is a package name equivalent to a package?
- To: Jon White <JLW@SU-AI.ARPA>
- Subject: When is a package name equivalent to a package?
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1985 02:35:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 25 Apr 1985 03:54-EST from Jon White <JLW at SU-AI.ARPA>
- Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
In the earlier messages we were discussing what the current situation
is, according to the manual. I don't have time to search the archives,
but it seems to me that where we said "package", we meant "package". We
might even have had a good reason for this.
If we are going to discuss changes, right now it sounds reasonable to me
to allow package names in most of the places that are documented to take
packages -- all except *package*, package-name, and package-nicknames --
as you suggest. I can't construct a good argument against this right