[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Bug in CLM?
- To: Jon White <JLW@SU-AI.ARPA>
- Subject: Bug in CLM?
- From: Rob MacLachlan <RAM@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1985 14:13:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: Msg of 23 Apr 1985 01:30-EST from Jon White <JLW at SU-AI.ARPA>
Date: Tuesday, 23 April 1985 01:30-EST
From: Jon White <JLW at SU-AI.ARPA>
cc: common-lisp at SU-AI.ARPA
Re: Bug in CLM?
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.