[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Interpretation of shadowing

To: Dieter Kolb <unido!ztivax!kolb@seismo.CSS.GOV>, samalone@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Interpretation of shadowing
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 87 14:07 EDT
Cc: Common-lisp@sail.stanford.edu
In-reply-to: <8708241350.AA23968@ztivax.uucp>, <8708241451.AA28748@HADES.MIT.EDU>

I agree with Malone.  The SHADOW function always adds the symbol
to the PACKAGE-SHADOWING-SYMBOLS list, and the informal wording
on p.186 of CLtL should not be interpreted otherwise.

This does not seem to be on the cleanup subcommittee's agenda yet,
so I'll add a writeup of the issue.  Thanks for pointing it out.

Follow-Ups:
- Interpretation of shadowing [and type of argument to SHADOW]
  - From: edsel!bhopal!jonl@labrea.stanford.edu (Jon L White)

References:
- Re: Interpretation of shadowing
  - From: <samalone@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>

Prev by Date: Re: Interpretation of shadowing
Next by Date: The values returned by SETF
Previous by thread: Re: Interpretation of shadowing
Next by thread: Interpretation of shadowing [and type of argument to SHADOW]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread