Re: KIF and packages

Tom Gruber <>
Message-id: <2863377226-903706@KSL-Mac-69>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90  15:33:46 PDT
From: Tom Gruber <>
To: "Matthew L. Ginsberg" <>,
Cc: James Rice <>
Subject: Re:  KIF and packages
In-reply-to: Msg of Wed, 26 Sep 90 13:22:51 -0700 from "Matthew L. Ginsberg" <>
> That certainly will need to be addressed, but it is unfortunately
> not that simple.  The reason is that most systems have already got
> something called "true" and when you do the use-package, you get
> a name conflict.  (I know this from my experience trying to port a
> system that uses something called "true".)

> My own suggestion would be to make the symbols exported as Tom
> suggests, but *not* expect the user to do a use-package.  Simply
> put the interlingua document itself in the KIF package and let
> the recipient sort it out as appropriate to his system.

Of course.  There should be no REQUIREMENT or ASSUMPTION that the user
does a use-package.  In practice I recommend against it when trying to
port somebody else's code, and it is especially unfriendly when an
application does it "for the user".  The fact that there is a
significant overlap of symbols in KIF and Lisp, and that many users
will, in fact, try to import KIF symbols into a package that also uses
common-lisp, motivates the design decision to have the KIF package use
the common-lisp.  If the user of a system that defines
"mypackage::true" wants to read or print KIF KBs, she may want to say

(defpackage "MYPACKAGE"
  (:use "KIF" "COMMON-LISP")
  (:shadow KIF:TRUE)

or she may want to read and print her KBs with KIF:TRUE and KIF:=>.