[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
package proposal comments
- To: DILL@CMU-CS-C
- Subject: package proposal comments
- From: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 1983 01:41:00 -0000
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI
- In-reply-to: Msg of 10 May 83 01:14:21 EDT from DILL
A quick response to your comments (which reached me to late to be
reflected in the latest package proposal):
Transitive and Intransitive inheritance: The latest proposal provides
the user with a choice.
Copy vs. Pointer semantics: Both systems have problems. I now believe
that copy semantics has worse problems, but I could be wrong. In any
event, I'm reluctant to completely redo the proposal the other way
unless the problems with deep-binding inheritance are fatal.
Packages as the unit of loading and compilation: We've been around this
a few times, and always come up with lots of problems. Loading the
right set of files is a tricky and implementation-dependent business. I
would like to see a comprehensive version-maintenance system in Common
Lisp someday (need a thesis topic?) but there is no way we're going to
get all that ironed out in time to make the first edition of the manual.