[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Packages
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Stanley T. Shebs)
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 15:49:29 MST
I haven't found packages to be as much of a headache as some people on
this list. They were both a pain and a necessity for PCLS, because the
code is sort of half PSL and half CL, and many symbols of the same name
exist in both packages (the psl: and lisp: packages don't use each other).
User-type code (at least around here) tends to use packages sparingly -
a program doesn't get its own package until it has a fat user manual and
a community of users :-). As a consequence, adding the package operations
occurs late in development, after the program has stabilized somewhat.
Since there are no explicit package references in the source, there is a
strong inducement to avoid adding explicit internal symbol references
all over the place.
The package fixes that have been proposed seem to me like bandaids, and not
worth the effort. A *real* solution would promote environments to full
first-class objects, and provide some good protocols for operating on
them. Look to T for a first attempt, and to Eulisp for more concentrated
efforts to get it right. Somehow, I don't see it ever getting into the
present form of CL. (Strange how CL is starting to look a little dated
here and there...)
- From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@ALDERAAN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>