[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: a37078%ccut.u-tokyo.junet%utokyo-relay.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA, gls%aquinas.think.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, ida%u-tokyo.junet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
- Subject: Re: exit-to-system
- From: Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 86 12:12 EDT
- In-reply-to: <8607290714.AA22657@ccut.u-tokyo.junet>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 86 16:14:11+0900
From: Masayuki Ida <a37078%ccut.u-tokyo.junet%utokyo-relay.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 86 15:01 EDT
From: Guy Steele <gls%ZARATHUSTRA.THINK.COM@u-tokyo.junet>
Subject: Re: exit-to-system
Well, we do have ED, which is clearly a user-interface thing.
Here is a stab at defining QUIT:
This function is intended to terminate the running Lisp system in some
appropriate manner. ...
I agree. The name QUIT sounds reasonable.
The name QUIT does not sound reasonable. Quit what? Is ease of typing
an issue, for something which is typed once per session and probably
appears once in even the largest subsystem? EXIT-LISP sounds much
better. I can easily (and have) had internal functions, and macros
called QUIT. I don't think the name should be used up in this way.
- Re: exit-to-system
- From: Masayuki Ida <a37078%ccut.u-tokyo.junet%utokyo-relay.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>