Hi Eitaro,On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Eitaro Fukamachi <e.arrows@gmail.com> wrote:This is a reproducible script.----(defpackage unexport-test(:export :a))(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)(when (find-package :unexport-test)(do-symbols (symbol :unexport-test)(unexport symbol :unexport-test))))(defpackage unexport-test(:export :a))(prin1 (nth-value 1 (intern (string :a) :unexport-test)))If cl-colors depends on this behaviour, it's depending on behaviour the cl spec explicitly named "undefined". From the spec:If the new definition is at variance with the current state of that package, the consequences are undefined; an implementation might choose to modify the existing package to reflect the new definition. (see http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/iiip/doc/CommonLISP/HyperSpec/Body/mac_defpackage.html, third sentence in the Description section)the important bit is "an implementation might choose to modify"; ABCL currently is an implementation that doesn't modify. Essentially this means you can - in ABCL's current implementation - just leave out the second DEFPACKAGE form...Of course, if you say this is pretty rare when compared to other implementations, I think we should seriously consider accepting a patch to change the behaviour. Do you know what the *exact* behaviours of SBCL and CCL are? Maybe it's not too hard to implement one of the two. Patch submission always very much welcome as well, of course!Regards,--