Re: Proper namespaces in Elisp

[Andrea Corallo]

João Távora <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:37 AM Andrea Corallo <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> _If_ you allow, I can still think would be more convenient doing
>> A even if Hyperspec says must do B.
>
> So you want to also change the meaning of QUOTE because
> typing a colon is less convenient than typing a quote?

No, what I suggested is to split symbols from bindings because only
these seconds are the ones causing name clashes.  I believe only the
bindings should be partinioned in different spaces.  I think I wrote
this already, but I've been told repeatedly that this is not how CL
works.  Please let us not restart on this again beacause I do understand
this is not how CL works.

> Is it that you have to press the shift key to type the colon?
> I find that odd, but in that case, never use (defpackage foo :use),
> you can still make pretty good use of CL packages.
>
>> I must say this is one the points where your writing sounds is a bit
>> arrogant.  I'm possibly wrong but I've to say I don't enjoy this
>> approach and the resulting tone of the conversation.  I don't think it
>> serves your points.
>
> You dropped a paper casually, presumably to support your case,
> didn't give any framing, just left it there. I could say I found that a
> bit arrogant, too. So I went and actually read it and quoted it back
> to you.

I fail to see how signaling two papers that touch on this topic can be
arrogant.  [2] in particular is entirely dedicated on the subject of
working at the binding level, that is my suggestion since the beginning.

But I suggest instead you to look at your mails before mine citing the
papers, where you suggest multiple times that I do not understand how CL
works and even encourage me studing it.  Do you think assuming others
are ignorant and suggesting it is a constructive way of having a
discussion?  Do you think this increases the probability that the
conversation will be fruitful?

>> > Not exactly categorical, i would say.
>> > So you could have just said "it's not my taste".
>> Papers just reflect the vision of the authors, this is how it works.
>> These are not papers describing scientific experiments.
>
> No, that's not how it works. I had a paper in the recent ELS (as
> did you, I understand) and I had to justify every assertion,
> particularly the ones concerning other people's work. So they are
> not mere opinions.  There is an effort to justify positions, or when
> can't, do like the author of [2] did and at least frame them as a
> question of taste.

Paper goes through peer review to ensure thereir quality, is up to the
publisher to decide if enough justification is given for a document to
be published.  This by no means implies scientific method is applied to
them or that they are factual distilled truth.

This is especially true while touching subjects as this, where we are
debating conveniency and not if CL is working or not.  This was out of
discussion since the beginning.

> But I'm spending my time in this list looking for hard facts to
> solve a real problem and I thought you had some to back up
> your strong statement of opposition.

I suggested my arguments more then once, you are not expected to share
them (this is perfectly fine) but please do not state I haven't.

I think read-time side effects would have been a following interesting
topic to discuss afterwards but unfortunatelly we got stuck considerably
earlier.

  Andrea

-- 
address@hidden