CLtL2 reads inconsistently regarding calls of the form (DOCUMENTATION
<symbol> 'TYPE). The description of DEFTYPE on page 62 says "If the
optional DOC-STRING is present then it is attached to the NAME [of the
type] as a documentation string of type TYPE." (This text has not been
marked as obsolete, i.e. with dotted lines). The description of
DOCUMENTATION on page 695 agrees with this, but the text has been
marked obsolete. The new description of DOCUMENTATION (p. 841) says
"The form (DOCUMENTATION <symbol> 'TYPE) returns the documentation of
the *class* object named by the symbol, if there is such a class." [my
emphasis] Apparently any doc-string appearing in a call to DEFTYPE now
falls into the bit bucket.
However, these definitions are not mutually exclusive since the same
(EQ) symbol cannot be used to name both a DEFTYPE type and a DEFCLASS
class. So what's the deal? Is this a bug in CLtL2? In my Lisp (LCL 4.1)
which conforms to the CLtL2 new definition. What does the ANSI spec
have to say?
---
..................................................
Len Charest, Jr.
JPL Artificial Intelligence Group
·······@aig.jpl.nasa.gov
In article <····················@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> ·······@@aig.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>The new description of DOCUMENTATION (p. 841) says
>"The form (DOCUMENTATION <symbol> 'TYPE) returns the documentation of
>the *class* object named by the symbol, if there is such a class." [my
>emphasis] Apparently any doc-string appearing in a call to DEFTYPE now
>falls into the bit bucket.
The dpANS says that it returns the documentation of the class, if there is
such a class, otherwise it returns the documentation of the type, if there
is such a type.
--
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
······@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar