Re: standard libraries again (was: Re: [External] : Re: completing-read depricated initial-input)

[Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>]

Drew Adams wrote:

>> I think we should have standard libraries like for example
>> C with the aspiration for uniformness and general
>> usefulness for a broad range of purposes ... the rest would
>> be libraries or simply programs (and no such assumptions
>> could then be made), and last if it's bundled in the Elisp
>> package way, then it's a package of course.
>
> "Library" in Emacs/Elisp has long meant what I said.
>
> Lisp files (e.g. `dired.el') or sets of files (e.g.
> Gnus) included with Emacs (perhaps autoloaded) are
> referred to as libraries.
>
> You don't need to download them separately.  And
> being part of Emacs, they're "standard", if you like.
>
> And they're typically not packages.  The only ones
> that are also packages are (I think) those that are
> also available from a package repository.  I think
> this is the case for Org, for example.

Now you're getting stuck on the names, I used what I think is
the best name to communicate the problem, poorly so it would
seem. No, change names one should be careful with.

The basic stuff has to be done over and over and locally for
everyone trying to solve some other problem on a whole other
level is th problem I describe, not whatever we or anyone else
calls stuff.

This is absolutely not a problem in Python and much less
a problem in C ... why? No reason what I can see in terms
of technology at least, right?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal