[Openmcl-devel] Feature request: DEFINE-TOPLEVEL-COMMAND should be external
tfb at tfeb.org
Thu Feb 25 02:27:39 UTC 2010
On 24 Feb 2010, at 18:10, Ron Garret wrote:
> Obviously I know you know this. What I'm really dancing around is
> the question of why you think it's important for this to be part of
> the standard distribution.
Because I would be interested in it becoming an interface which is
more committed / documented than what I'd associate with an internal
definition in a package. I can obviously arrange life so that I don't
have to type the "CCL::" easily, but I can't commit to the interface
because I don't control it. (And I care about this because I often
end up with quite large sets of toplevel commands I've defined in
implementations I use, because that's how I tend to work.)
So I guess what I was really asking is: is this an interface which
could become committed (in whatever sense is suitable)?
(Having now written a couple of commands more than I had when I wrote
the original message, one thing that would be nice in such an
interface is to have a sort-of EVALQUOTE option. For instance I have
a command called :ed which calls ED (but remembers arguments) and it
would be nice to be able to say ":ed foo" rather than ":ed 'foo".
I'll try and work out how to do that.)
The above all sounds like I'm doing the standard awful "I didn't pay
for this tool but I *insist* you add feature x *right now*" whining
you hear so often - it's not meant to be at all. I obviously don't
particularly expect anyone to do anything: I just think it would be an
interesting thing to make en exported interface.
More information about the Openmcl-devel