[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: common-lisp at SU-AI
- From: Richard M. Stallman <RMS at MIT-AI>
- Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1982 21:51:00 -0000
It seems that the proposal to use GET and PUT for property functions
is leading to a discussion of whether it is ok to reuse Maclisp
names with different meanings.
Perhaps that topic does need to be discussed, but there is no such
problem with using GET and PUT instead of GETPR and PUTPR.
GET would be compatible with Maclisp (except for disembodied plists),
and PUT is not used in Maclisp.
Let's not get bogged down in wrangling about the bigger issue
of clean definitions vs compatibility with Maclisp as long as we
can solve the individual issues in ways that meet both goals.