Subject: Re: Strange LOAD behaviour in CMUCL From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1999/01/17 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Hannu Koivisto <email@example.com> | Thanks for the explanation. This makes sense and is very logical, IMO | also when the default pathname is relative too. It's a shame HS seems to | be so vague here. I think it makes sense to say that a using a relative default pathname defies its purpose, which I see as resolving relative and otherwise incomplete pathnames into absolute and otherwise complete pathnames. if a relative default pathname made sense, there would be something else that would make a pathname complete beside the default pathname, but where would that information come form? Unix has a "superdefault" in the current working directory, but to use that as a basis of anything isn't even safe for Unix applications. #:Erik -- SIGTHTBABW: a signal sent from Unix to its programmers at random intervals to make them remember that There Has To Be A Better Way.