[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: miller.pa@XEROX.ARPA, Common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- Subject: Some questions
- From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 86 11:45 EDT
- In-reply-to: <860529-212115-1390@Xerox>
Date: 29 May 86 21:21 PDT
How happy are you with packages?
In particular, for those familiar T's reified lexical environments (aka
LOCALEs), can you think of any reason for preferring packages?
Can T's LOCALEs be added to the language in an upwards compatible way?
I'd like to point out, again, that packages get you thinks that locales
don't (if I understand locales properly -- someone correct me if I'm
wrong). Packages provide name scoping for symbols themselves, not for
values. Therefore, if symbolics are being used for virtue of their
identity rather than their value, packages provide name scoping and
locales do not. For example, suppose one subsystem uses the A:FOO
property of symbols, and another subsystem uses the B:FOO property.