[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Common-Lisp@su-ai.ARPA
- Subject: feature names
- From: Snyderfirstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1985 13:57:00 -0000
- Source-info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
If we agree that feature names are to be read in the keyword package,
then I claim there is no advantage to allowing package prefixes to
appear in feature names. In particular, if you have to write MIT:FOOBAR
to name your feature, why not write MIT-FOOBAR instead? What makes
the package system "better" than long names is the ability to be
"in" a particular package, so you don't have to write the package name
on each symbol. If feature names are always read "in" the keyword
package, then this advantage disappears. The disadvantage of allowing
package prefixes in feature names is this business of supressing
package system errors.