Closed rmkaplan closed 5 months ago
This patch might be OK, except it makes the code uglier in order to work around a (unimpactrul) step in the process.
How can we fix the problem once and for all? Would it work to have file or package relative fieldnames? The whole (fetch (RECORDNAME FIELDNAME) of X) is so verbose compared to X:FIELDNAME tht was originally used for record access in INterlisp-10
Packages that are included in the fuller database (or in the full sysout) should not have unqualified record accesses in general, and they should not redefine other system fields (like X, Y, LEFT...), particularly ones that are likely to appear unqualified in lots of other places. A more compact syntax would be nice (even some systematic macros like I have done in Tedit), but avoiding conflicts is higher priority.
This eliminates a bunch of errors in building the fuller database (#1141). Basically, renaming fields like LEFT, BOTTOM or X Y that conflict with core system field names.
LLKEY, CHAT, and EDITBITMAP are still troubled.