[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
When is a package name equivalent to a package?
- To: Rob MacLachlan <RAM@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
- Subject: When is a package name equivalent to a package?
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 85 20:50 EST
- Cc: Jon White <JLW@SU-AI.ARPA>, common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: <RAM.12105714157.BABYL@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1985 10:13 EST
From: Rob MacLachlan <RAM@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
Date: Tuesday, 23 April 1985 01:30-EST
From: Jon White <JLW at SU-AI.ARPA>
There is such consistency in this choice of phraseology that I take it to
mean that unless there is a clear statement that the argment must be a
package datatype, then it is permissible for it to be anything reasonably
coerceible to a package. In this case, (intern ... 'KEYWORD) is the same
as (intern ... "KEYWORD") and (intern ... (find-package "KEYWORD"))
Does everyone agree that this is correct? If this is the case, then
may *package* be random things also? Currently Spice Lisp requires
every package argument to be a package.
I think the manual is quite clear.
p.183 requires that the value of *package* be a package.
p.182 specifies that certain functions, including INTERN, shall accept strings
and symbols in place of packages. As is unfortunately typical of the CLM,
this specification is not repeated in the documentation of each of the affected
functions, so it's quite easy to overlook.