Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!polya!cayuga!andy
From: andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Another Lucid Question
Message-ID: <3522@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 7 Aug 88 09:06:34 GMT
References: <3384@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <6882@bcsaic.UUCP> <3424@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: news@polya.Stanford.EDU
Reply-To: andy@cayuga.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Distribution: na
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 18

In article <3424@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
(Eliot Handelman) writes:
>I just want to make a practical suggestion to lisp documenters: I think
>it makes sense to indicate the existence of EVERYTHING available in the lisp,
>in EVERY package, regardless whether or not it's felt that the user has
>the right to use these things are not. And considering the volume and expense
>of the Lucid doc, I can't see why this was not done. Counterarguments?

Anything they tell you about the internals is one more thing they
can't change easily in the next release; it's also one more thing they
have to support in the current release.  (The internal stuff may work
the way that they're using it, but it may not work the way that you
want to use it.)

-andy
UUCP:  {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:  andy@polya.stanford.edu
(415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle