Re: Proper namespaces in Elisp

[Andrea Corallo]

João Távora <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 8:07 AM Andrea Corallo <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> No, what I suggested is to split symbols from bindings because only
>> these seconds are the ones causing name clashes.
>
> AFAIK your argument goes like this:  CL packages are a bad
> idea because, when you use them like this other system that is
> not CL packages, they don't work like you want. This is circular.
> It will infloop this thread.

No my argument is: I think behavior B (the CL one) is not optimal
because X, I'd like more behavior A.

I don't see any circularity into that from my side.

> This is why I encouraged you to study it, because you presented
> an odd example that seemed to indicate you didn't know
> understand how quoting works inside package.  I apologize.

Thanks.

> You _could_ have said you that some other namespacing system
> X is also _sufficient_ for the problems we're trying to solve right
> now and then proceeded to justify that.  E.g. you could say X is
> easier to implement, is faster at x-time (where x = run/compile/
> read), has a less verbose interface, fries omelets, etc.

I think that's what I did decribing behavior A.

I may come-up one day with a prototype to play and discuss with if I
find the time.  I guess would be more interesting and effective in
highlighting pros or flaws of this.

  Andrea

-- 
address@hidden