From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: CommonLisp namespace system (was Re: adding namespaces to emacs-lisp (better elisp?)) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:19:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <194749a2-39c2-47b8-8079-fb14e6843378@default> References: <874nbh2z3y.fsf@ferrier.me.uk> <87y58t1cih.fsf_-_@ferrier.me.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1374859200 7552 80.91.229.3 (26 Jul 2013 17:20:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:20:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Nic Ferrier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 26 19:20:00 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V2lgO-0006kj-2h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 19:20:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32796 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V2lgN-0002fw-IK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:19:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59037) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V2lgK-0002dc-QX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:19:57 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V2lgH-0000s7-Sf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:19:56 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:33524) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V2lgH-0000lJ-MP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:19:53 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r6QHJL6j003205 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:19:30 GMT Original-Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6QHJHFL023633 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:19:21 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt102.oracle.com (abhmt102.oracle.com [141.146.116.54]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6QHJHYj017385; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:19:17 GMT In-Reply-To: <87y58t1cih.fsf_-_@ferrier.me.uk> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.7 (607090) [OL 12.0.6668.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:162154 Archived-At: > > I read your proposal overview, Nic. It's not clear to me just what > > the differences would be from the Common Lisp package system. > > Perhaps you could spell the differences out in more detail somewhere. > > > > But the closer we can get to the CL spec the better, IMO. If we > > could conform to it completely, that would be great. >=20 > I disagree. Emacs isn't CommonLisp, never has been CommonLisp and > very likely, never will be CommonLisp. Some of us nevertheless hope it will become closer in many respects. > > Even keeping the same terminology, symbol names etc. as CL would > > help. It would help users who are coming from Common Lisp or who > > happen to read Common Lisp doc. >=20 > But at the expense of muddying the waters for people who are not from > that world. "That world" is a longstanding one, with a rigorous, if informal, spec. Emacs Lisp is younger (even if Emacs, in one form or another, is older than Common Lisp itself, though not older than its ancestors). And Emacs Lisp has no spec - it is defined rigorously only by its (ever moving) implementation. And of course if Emacs adopts Common Lisp packages or similar then the two worlds approach, and the waters become clearer with time and closeness. > In Emacs world, we use "package" to mean something different from what > CL "package" means. That's a very recent introduction to the "Emacs world". Hardly much of a precedent. "In [the] Emacs world" is a pretty bold way of describing something we just introduced, as if it were essential to what Emacs Lisp has always been. It is a recent add-on - a welcome one, but hardly core. And the question here is not about abandoning package.el etc. It is about the terminology: "package". Who heard of Emacs "packages" a few years ago? Contrast that with who had heard of Common Lisp "packages". > So right at the start that effort is doomed without > a major change to Emacs 24. Introducing proper packages (a la Common Lisp) would likely be a major change to Emacs, yes. And a welcome one, IMO. > > Of course, adopting CL terminology in this regard should mean that > > we would drop the terminology used so far for Emacs "packages". > > An argument can be made that both uses of the word "package" are > > somewhat unfortunate. >=20 > I am trying to make a namespace system that would be backwards > compatible with Emacs and yet encourage future good behaviour. >=20 > CommonLisp terminology or compatibility is not a major aim of mine. Too bad. Emacs Lisp is already farther from Common Lisp than it should be after 30-some years.