package names, consistency

[Glenn S. Burke <GSB@MIT-MC>]

    Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1985  22:35 EST
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>

    . . .
    If we are going to discuss changes, right now it sounds reasonable to me
    to allow package names in most of the places that are documented to take
    packages -- all except *package*, package-name, and package-nicknames --
    as you suggest.  I can't construct a good argument against this right
    now.

This sounds reasonable.  If one wants to draw comparisons, however, the
various PATHNAME "accessors", such as pathname-host, pathname-name, all
take anything which can be coerced to a pathname...

There are a few other things, mostly nomenclature inconsistencies,
which i have found myself explaining more than once.  One of the worst
appears to be simple-vector.  It should have been left as
simple-general-vector in spite of the verbiage.