[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Where do extensions go?
- To: "common-lisp" <common-lisp@su-ai.ARPA>
- Subject: Where do extensions go?
- From: "BACH::GREEK" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1986 14:07:00 -0000
- Reply-to: "BACH::GREEK" <email@example.com>
I agree that different implementations might have lots of packages with
different extensions in them (e.g., debugger, editor). It just seems
a pain if you don't import all of these into one extensions package and
then make them public from there. Otherwise the user has to use all
sorts of packages or put package prefixes everywhere.
In particular, Common LISP says that there will probably be a debugger
(for example), but doesn't talk about the interface. So the user says
"I want to use the debugger, where the hell is it? Which packages do I
have to use so that any symbols that are part of the debugger will show
up? Do I need to use more than one package?" It seems we could avoid
some of this annoyance if we just said that all such public symbols are
in some standard package.
Of course there might be confusion between two implementations. But
that isn't any worse or better if we agree on the name of the extensions
package. Also, by agreeing on one name, we only reserve that one name,
and we don't potentially have a bunch of names that layered product
developers have to avoid. This is particularly important if we refuse
to register package names, which we probably will.