[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Pure CL, package names etc.
- To: common-lisp%SU-AI@SRI-KL
- Subject: Pure CL, package names etc.
- From: David Singer <DSinger@SRI-KL>
- Date: Fri 23 May 86 09:38:03-PDT
I don't think the vendor extended package on different vendors systems
should have the same name, because the won't have the same meaning (i.e.
contents). The pure CL package should be called LISP; portable programs
are well advised to select it explicitly; any other extensions should be
in packages which are functionally named as far as possible, and inherited
(maybe) by packages like SYMBOLICS-COMMON-LISP et al. so that there is
a single 'extended' package on each machine. Many of the extensions can
be and will be at least semi-portable, or from other than the original
lisp vendor. To the largest extent possible these extensions should be
functionally separated into packages with functional names, rather than
names which signify nothing (e.g. EXTENDED) or the vendor name. I would
expect sites, under such a scheme, to develop their extended package(s)
to suit them, knowing that if they import e.g. LISP and TENSOR-ALGEBRA
they'll either get pure cl+tensors or an error.