But don't _you_ ever use :USE it for packages that you _do_ havecontrol over? Like an internal utils package? Or a test packagethat uses the package under testing? Otherwise I agree with youabout the ":USE abuse".
Of course I do! I've mentioned in my earlier mail,
> or a combination of packages that do not change and we have full control over so we can manually see and resolve the symbol conflicts as they arise
Perhaps that wasn't clear enough from me: I meant that it is fine
to :USE packages that are known to not change and to :USE packages
that we fully control, such as internal util packages that you
mention; and it is fine to combine using the two within a single
package.
I actually disagree when it comes to :USE-ing packages under test; I think that they should be tested via their fully qualified name, or local nickname.
~phoe