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

Keyword extensions to Compile

    The point is a portable program needs
    to know what it is going to get when it says (make-package 'foo), an
    implementation-specific program can know that it will get extra nice
    stuff if it says (make-package 'foo :use 'extended-common-lisp), but a
    portable program needs to be able to protect itself from that extra stuff.

Or alternatively, the portable package could say (make-package 'foo :use
'pure-common-lisp) while random users say (make-package 'foo).

I guess if we want to get serious about portable code, we're going to
have to require that implementations provide a pure Common Lisp package,
even though this will be pretty bloody for implementations that didn't
start off this way.  Then all we've got to argue about is whether the
pure or extended version gets the name "LISP", and with it the default
inclusion into other packages.  This is not a life-or-death issue with
me, but I think that getting the extended stuff by default is the right
way to go.

-- Scott