Subject: Re: Which make-pathname function is broken? From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 1998/07/03 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Francis Leboutte | This a question about the use of the :defaults argument in make-pathname | when the :directory argument is a relative directory. we've been around this one before, and the emerging consensus was that MAKE-PATHNAME creates a new pathname object from the supplied parameters directly as specified, and that only the unsupplied arguments are taken from the DEFAULTS argument. therefore, if you supply a DIRECTORY argument to MAKE-PATHNAME, it is immaterial what the DIRECTORY component of the DEFAULTS argument is. initially, I had the same intuitive understanding as you do, but then I received an intuition upgrade, a.k.a. experience of enlightenment. :) conclusion: ACL 5.0.beta is correct, and ACL4W is broken. #:Erik -- http://www.naggum.no/spam.html is about my spam protection scheme and how to guarantee that you reach me. in brief: if you reply to a news article of mine, be sure to include an In-Reply-To or References header with the message-ID of that message in it. otherwise, you need to read that page.