From ...
From: Erik Naggum <clerik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Which make-pathname function is broken?
Date: 1998/07/03
Message-ID: <3108454610901449@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 368374594
References: <35a187e0.4617209@news.skynet.be>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp


* 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.