Re: adding namespaces to emacs-lisp (better elisp?)

["Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com>]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> http://nic.ferrier.me.uk/blog/2013_06/adding-namespaces-to-elis pis
>> a proposal to add namespaces to emacs-lisp.
>> 
>> I'd be really interested in what people think about this, whether it
>> would be worth my time trying to do this or not.
>
> OK, I'll start.  I am in favor of the Common Lisp spec - IOW, Common
> Lisp "packages".  I am in favor of such a namespace system for Emacs
> Lisp.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> And it would help the reuse/transfer of existing code from CL to
> Elisp.  (Yes, such reuse/transfer might require some massaging, but
> similar syntax and semantics would help minimize that operation.)
>
> 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.
>
> At this point, I think conforming to the terminology that has been
> used in CL for 30 years is the right approach, regardless of
> whether CL "packages" are really, in effect, namespaces.
>
> So +1 for adding CL-style namespaces to Emacs Lisp.  One opinion.

+1

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.  
You know you've been lisping too long when you see a recent picture of George 
Lucas and think "Wait, I thought John McCarthy was dead!" -- Dalek_Baldwin