From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 20:11:58 +0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b2e7b605ec82741c" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="38335"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel To: =?UTF-8?Q?Gerd_M=C3=B6llmann?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 02 21:12:56 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oqK6a-0009rJ-48 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 21:12:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oqK5w-000342-B0; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 16:12:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oqK5u-00031e-In for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 16:12:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ot1-x32a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oqK5s-0007U9-M0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 16:12:14 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ot1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id 16-20020a9d0490000000b0066938311495so10896650otm.4 for ; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 13:12:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=SwaCXdyP6qGd8ERBBk0LBPHa5an7Gf/SioWF4hvIM6c=; b=nOYLiVg4U/nz1fSFN6omlWY62xy/TuUdMai8GzInk5uYGUJLnkb+fI/FcK5OLPUrJj AlLPKTsVseTcbFIleqX5LINwWs0fQQoiAlL4TiH9SPvUC39lpd3l0ZWZlNUDXmP5aXSK wO/hx/07TmuuJ+dNGYQZs928+LCX+yXmfVm+yrs5RY1Q6o+u0YJXHTB0FoGQxDJtxrrS dowfjbqLxtmOMKtbLbHZYog7f68XYMrpu7xsuHXO37LueNeK0dAI8PSfpXVq3lIRwAKO aoduCE2WdifwIdH768edBH05U8vP/aYYd2Mmf1Xdh7PTvZ42sL59hiHz3y2GyEYqYZah 3ggw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=SwaCXdyP6qGd8ERBBk0LBPHa5an7Gf/SioWF4hvIM6c=; b=w+/jVIPEp10vxrudoQbEP895gVgBQCp9QbeU1u+rR2Ubg7mLHk/iRZczCfhzP1JHEv fjEYUFcOxDByDcqih040vQnwTe5api1JB+WlcYUMI/RnGGq/c3H+mjvPYp27rZh4s4lC Zf+09vRC5/xHWpvYKKqdBxSf3V29l+fFApjhiE4UZ7j4GJI3ORoJTtZXEp19hZIdLf2J 7cWu/IrFBfGKozP0hLOTrIU/A3LGRK+3Rl1vEBg06WmLkw9LTYhBDdcoWeW8tU1ta5U1 tKDveqh0w5NBFTsUre/r4/5KGV+SIv9Gmp0ITxJ6HfGpzp0TdcIWa3mrtq9DCv/cXay5 Y1yw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1MxgfVHIe6B//SytOkzq9nKdUaf7QoJGtkzSXDFOYxREsmveta pWyPaF/r4LDe41xaFKZWPs2BfgKjhP855Z9wdCQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6IeiVMZvSzlbXhC4OudSqPRswWZc37uFNWUckOEwClkvXJTFcdKKbhKhHb2p7gNOZRhEnHyd7KzNxXA031B+Y= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:117:0:b0:666:e09d:577e with SMTP id 23-20020a9d0117000000b00666e09d577emr13555146otu.93.1667419931337; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 13:12:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a; envelope-from=joaotavora@gmail.com; helo=mail-ot1-x32a.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:299039 Archived-At: --000000000000b2e7b605ec82741c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Gerd, I'm there one who implemented shorthands in Emacs, and i sure don't think they are a substitute for CL packages. They can solve some namespacing problems and they can also offer some convenience for library writing (see github.com/joaotavora/beardbolt for an example). But they're infinitely inferior to proper CL packages, especially with the package-local nickname extension. It's "what could be arranged" to use a silly portuguesism. Jo=C3=A3o On Sun, Oct 30, 2022, 06:46 Gerd M=C3=B6llmann w= rote: > Since Richard is swamped with mails, I'd like to try and ask some > questions here. > > To start with---I have no problem understanding the shorthands > mechanism, that's easy enough. (To be honest, I have to admit I don't > like the idea, for reasons I won't go into here, but that's another > story. A mechanism will find its uses, I guess :-). > > My problem is understanding why anyone would think shorthands are an > alternative to or substitute for packages. I mean in principle, and > regardless of packages being Common Lisp packages or any other form of > module system. I simply can't get it. > > So, I guess my first question is: does anyone here think shorthands are > a substitute got packages, and if so could you please share your thought > why, and how one would use them for that? If not, it might also be > helpful to know why not. > > And my second question os: Because I don't get it, I'm considering the > possibility that shorthands are still incomplete, and some features are > missing that would make it a substitute for a module system. Something > that's not documented anywhere, apparently. If so, what is it? Or > where is it described? Or does someone have an idea? You know what I > mean. > > Finally, here's why I don't get the idea: > > According to me, shorthands don't address the problem > packages/modules/namespaces are trying to do deal with _at all_, which > is programming in the large, which means that large programs with many > and diverse contributors suffer from name conflicts. > > The reason why I think shorthands don't address that problem is pretty > simple, according to me again: The underlying one obarray can only > contain one name per symbol at a time. So, whatever name lands in the > obarray must be unique, as it always was. And this of course leads to > conflicts. Whether or not the unique name can otherwise be used in > abbreviated form or not doesn't change anything in this regard. > > Or am I going nuts and overlooking the obvious? > > > > > > > --000000000000b2e7b605ec82741c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=C2=A0Gerd, I'm there one who implemented shorthand= s in Emacs, and i sure don't think they are a substitute for CL package= s.=C2=A0

They can solve some n= amespacing problems and they can also offer some convenience for library wr= iting (see github.com/jo= aotavora/beardbolt for an example). But they're infinitely inferior= to proper CL packages, especially with the package-local nickname extensio= n.

It's "what c= ould be arranged" to use a silly portuguesism.
=
Jo=C3=A3o

On Sun, Oct 30, 2022, 06:46 Gerd= M=C3=B6llmann <gerd.moellma= nn@gmail.com> wrote:
Since R= ichard is swamped with mails, I'd like to try and ask some
questions here.

To start with---I have no problem understanding the shorthands
mechanism, that's easy enough.=C2=A0 (To be honest, I have to admit I d= on't
like the idea, for reasons I won't go into here, but that's another=
story.=C2=A0 A mechanism will find its uses, I guess :-).

My problem is understanding why anyone would think shorthands are an
alternative to or substitute for packages.=C2=A0 I mean in principle, and regardless of packages being Common Lisp packages or any other form of
module system.=C2=A0 I simply can't get it.

So, I guess my first question is: does anyone here think shorthands are
a substitute got packages, and if so could you please share your thought why, and how one would use them for that?=C2=A0 If not, it might also be helpful to know why not.

And my second question os: Because I don't get it, I'm considering = the
possibility that shorthands are still incomplete, and some features are
missing that would make it a substitute for a module system.=C2=A0 Somethin= g
that's not documented anywhere, apparently.=C2=A0 If so, what is it?=C2= =A0 Or
where is it described?=C2=A0 Or does someone have an idea?=C2=A0 You know w= hat I
mean.

Finally, here's why I don't get the idea:

According to me, shorthands don't address the problem
packages/modules/namespaces are trying to do deal with _at all_, which
is programming in the large, which means that large programs with many
and diverse contributors suffer from name conflicts.

The reason why I think shorthands don't address that problem is pretty<= br> simple, according to me again: The underlying one obarray can only
contain one name per symbol at a time.=C2=A0 So, whatever name lands in the=
obarray must be unique, as it always was.=C2=A0 And this of course leads to=
conflicts.=C2=A0 Whether or not the unique name can otherwise be used in abbreviated form or not doesn't change anything in this regard.

Or am I going nuts and overlooking the obvious?






--000000000000b2e7b605ec82741c--