[LISPWORKS][Common Lisp HyperSpec (TM)] [Previous][Up][Next]


Forum:		Public Review


References: Barrett's public review comment #26

Loosemore's public review comment #7




Category: CHANGE

Edit history: 20 Dec 1992, Version 1 by Loosemore

Status: Proposal RESTORE-ARGUMENT passed 11-0 on letter ballot


Problem description:

In the base document (CLtL), the REQUIRE function was specified as

accepting a required module name argument and an optional pathname

argument. In the current specification, the optional pathname

argument has been removed. The rationale given for this in

X3J13/91-415 is that it was the second argument that led to

portability problems. This claim is incorrect. It was the case that

both the one argument and the two argument forms had portability

problems in the past, but the addition of logical pathnames made the

two argument version easier to use in a portable way. Elimination of the

second argument means that we're left with the same problem the single

argument form has always had, namely that there are several competing,

incompatible mechanisms for dealing with the situation where the

module being required has not already been provided.


Restore the optional pathname argument to REQUIRE, as specified

in the base document.

Replace the examples with ones that better illustrate portable and

nonportable uses of REQUIRE, such as those suggested below.


Restoring the second argument makes it at least *possible* to use

REQUIRE in a portable way.


;;; This illustrates a nonportable use of REQUIRE, because it

;;; depends on the implementation-dependent file-loading mechanism.

(require "CALCULUS")

;;; This use of REQUIRE is nonportable because of the literal

;;; physical pathname.

(require "CALCULUS" "/usr/lib/lisp/calculus")

;;; One form of portable usage involves supplying a logical pathname,

;;; with appropriate translations defined elsewhere.

(require "CALCULUS" "lib:calculus")

;;; Another form of portable usage involves using a variable or

;;; table lookup function to determine the pathname, which again

;;; must be initialized elsewhere.

(require "CALCULUS" *calculus-module-pathname*)

Current practice:

Who knows?

Cost to implementors:


Cost to users:



Having a feature in the language which is impossible to use portably

is unaesthetic.

Editorial impact:

The changes are confined to the dictionary entry for REQUIRE.


The proposal to restore REQUIRE to the language without its second

argument was brought up at the Dec 1991 meeting without the benefit of

a formal writeup or any advance discussion on the mailing list, which

accounts for the resulting technical blunder. We don't have a very

good record when it comes to technical decisions made on the fly at


Loosemore says: I would still prefer to remove this broken feature

from the language entirely, but I'd rather not waste any more time

arguing about that given that some people seem to feel strongly about

keeping it in. I'm willing to accept proposal RESTORE-ARGUMENT

as a compromise, but doing nothing would not be acceptable to me.

[Starting Points][Contents][Index][Symbols][Glossary][Issues]
Copyright 1996-2005, LispWorks Ltd. All rights reserved.