[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
When is a package name equivalent to a package?
- To: fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA, moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA
- Subject: When is a package name equivalent to a package?
- From: Jon White <JLW@SU-AI.ARPA>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1985 04:54:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
In-reply-to: your messge of 24-Apr-85 22:04 EST
There are only three places I can remember that explicitly say
"... must be a package": the definition of *package*, the argument to
package-name, and the argment to package-nicknames. It would seem reasonable
to me to let all other arguments called "package" be coercible from symbols,
strings, and packages. I can't say that requireing the arguments to
package-name and package-nicknames to be "a package" achieves anything;
I'd be happier with Moon's suggestion to let all function args be coercible.
Actually, another constraint has been bugging me recently -- the argument
to in-package is constrained to be a "name"; why not let it be a package
also? If you did so, it would have no bearing one way or other on the
advisibility of using a form like
as a CL minor-mode specifier.