[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
package names, consistency
- To: common-lisp@SU-AI
- Subject: package names, consistency
- From: Glenn S. Burke <GSB@MIT-MC>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 85 17:47:24 EST
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
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.