From ...
From: Erik Naggum <clerik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Package System and new dialect
Date: 1998/07/22
Message-ID: <3110112916127531@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 374505226
References: <35AFC5B6.7C25F634@IntelliMarket.Com> <vytpvf0e9ss.fsf@ai.mit.edu> <35B57722.6410CF19@IntelliMarket.Com>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Kelly Murray
| The fact its so cumbersome is certainly one reason everyone hates the
| package system, its confusing and doesn't do what you think it does.

  count me out, please.  I don't hate the package system.  it also does
  what I think it does.

  I use the package system to partition both code and data in my current
  project into fairly gross partitions, for which the package system seems
  well suited (unlike the fine partitions frequently employed in namespaces
  or module systems in other languages), such as a "substrate" package of
  fairly low-level functions supporting the application code in its own
  package, which does _not_ USE the substrate package, but references the
  symbols therein explicitly.  this avoids a lot of SHADOWING-IMPORT-FROM
  for redefined CL functions (stuff like a generic OPEN that dispatches on
  subclasses of PATHNAME -- not quite kosher) and also improves legibility
  in that one is not confused by apparent references to the standard CL
  functions.  then there's the administration (or user) package which does
  USE the application package, but not the COMMON-LISP package and is
  intended as the user interface package.  however, if I were to use a
  module system, it would have had an order of magnitude more namespaces.

#: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.