From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 22:35:51 -0500 Message-ID: References: <651bbe21-f179-730a-4f10-7dc6d27055ea@gmail.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="15947"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gerd =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=C3=B6llmann?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 12 04:36:51 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 1othK5-0003w0-K4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 12 Nov 2022 04:36:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1othJB-0006dx-Is; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 22:35:53 -0500 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 1othJA-0006co-B4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 22:35:52 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1othJA-00073Y-2K; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 22:35:52 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=Date:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: mime-version; bh=GZL6OkNZ/XhBm8+08h5LYcTbR5v6Z7tDZYNb7stzlyE=; b=BT7Tobz2vM6e yTIV7+75TLDb+eQ7qtEz3q5JvuqFrQxObJBg6EnovdZkBxro4E9xa9XcF4V9Ox8hkLzF0qCE7lsoS lvmUzOnKug6Bcnj/XXRsn6qTyP6RfGb5Vdx0xsunZKenvu8M0xxuUs3XRfuBLTbiLBmvgsBj7HwJj nbbo1U6wNTMq/S5m6dKs8sA70D3jw+xk6k7MyZHaQ/HZx5BLx2wqUDQMODYiQZUqmXyxSDdfdmpgi D8Rem1lbuPBNc7mznhD5Jwe/3O9Ru5wbWO6jX2+ThsXj4As4X8jTwwCt0yVJPVyrlDg7ZUhTMcBGg GM+Dhk3IsRptWYgD+8FwWw==; Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1othJ9-0007ui-QZ; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 22:35:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Gerd =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=C3=B6llmann?= on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 10:25:45 +0100) 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: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:299597 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > I must admit that I don't understand what you are referring to. Could > you please give an example of a module system doing that? I can't. I have never written code in a language which has such a module system. I read about these module systems decades ago. For more details, or examples, you will need to ask people who have actually used them. At first > glance It sounds like visibility rules, or something, but I don't > remember a language with different visibility rules for functions and > variables, ATM. What I recall is NOT that there are "different visibility rules", but rather that the visibility rules would apply to specific definitions. Perhaps in those languages a given symbol can have only one active definition in any scope. So a symbol could be have a function definition or a variable definition in any given module, but never both. I think that is the situation in Scheme. But I have never programmed in Scheme. > > The grave problem of :USE in CL packages could be fixed by replacing > > it with a new construct that specifies a list of symbols to be > > inherited from each other package, perhaos with renaming. > I fail to understand the "grave" problem, sorry. Could you please give > a more concrete example? Perhaps "shadow" or "shadowing-import" amount to the construct I was envisioning. I saw those terms only today, and I don't know what they mean. > > We could call this system "corrected CL packages." > > It would not be compatible but it would be better. > It could be compatible, at least I don't see a reason right now why it > couldn't. It could be made upward-compatible, but not fully compatible: programs using :INHERIT would not load in standard Common Lisp. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)