[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Bug in CLM?
- To: Rob MacLachlan <RAM@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
- Subject: Bug in CLM?
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1985 14:49:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA, Jon White <JLW@SU-AI.ARPA>
- In-reply-to: Msg of 24 Apr 1985 10:13-EST from Rob MacLachlan <RAM>
- Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
I seem to have misplaced JONL's original message, so I'm not sure what
"consistency of terminology" he is referring to. I think that any
consistency in the manual is purely coincidental. :-}
I believe that in writing the package chapter we were careful to say
that an argument could be "a package or package name" where that is what
we meant. (A package name can be either a string or a symbol.) When we
don't say that, as in INTERN, "package" means an object of type package
and nothing else. It certainly is not the case that *package* can be
anything but a true package. See page 174, the first sentence after the
heading for section 11.3, for a definitive statement of this.