[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Common-Lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- Subject: Lisp package
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1986 17:13:00 -0000
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
In response to David Plummer:
Wrong. The LISP package contains the Common Lisp language. Anything
else, ANYTHING, is not Common Lisp, but rather an extension. Extensions
belong in some other package or packages. Applications can use those
other packages in addition to LISP. This is a matter of documentation
by vendors for people writing such applications.
It does not say anywhere that the Lisp package contains ONLY the Common
Lisp language. That's certainly one way to handle this, but it is not
obvious that this is the best way, regardless of how forcefully you
choose to state this opinion.
I agree that it would be useful to have separate packages for "pure"
Common Lisp and for the richer default environment provided by a given
implementation. It seems clear to me that the latter is what should be
used by Make-Package unless the user specifies otherwise, since this is
what the implementors of the system believe that the user will typically
want to have around. The only remaining issue is which of these
concepts gets to use the name Lisp, and which has to find a new name.