From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Pascal J. Bourguignon" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: adding namespaces to emacs-lisp (better elisp?) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:33:16 +0200 Organization: Informatimago Message-ID: <87ppu41edv.fsf@informatimago.com> References: <874nbh2z3y.fsf@ferrier.me.uk> <871u6l2ral.fsf@ferrier.me.uk> <87siz116zo.fsf@ferrier.me.uk> <3b4713cb-5fd5-498b-b9ee-a676f0fef845@default> <85fvv032q3.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1374927479 26598 80.91.229.3 (27 Jul 2013 12:17:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:17:59 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 27 14:18:01 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V33Rh-0000VT-0W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:18:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44584 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V33Rg-0007Pc-JA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:18:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35435) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V33Oj-00027x-2q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:14:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V33DT-0006jK-CZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:03:42 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:45723) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V31q4-0001OD-OQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 06:35:04 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V31q3-00045e-V9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:35:03 +0200 Original-Received: from amontsouris-651-1-252-173.w92-163.abo.wanadoo.fr ([92.163.83.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:35:03 +0200 Original-Received: from pjb by amontsouris-651-1-252-173.w92-163.abo.wanadoo.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:35:03 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 27 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: amontsouris-651-1-252-173.w92-163.abo.wanadoo.fr Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwAQMAAABtzGvEAAAABlBMVEUAAAD///+l2Z/dAAAA oElEQVR4nK3OsRHCMAwF0O8YQufUNIQRGIAja9CxSA55AxZgFO4coMgYrEDDQZWPIlNAjwq9 033pbOBPtbXuB6PKNBn5gZkhGa86Z4x2wE67O+06WxGD/HCOGR0deY3f9Ijwwt7rNGNf6Oac l/GuZTF1wFGKiYYHKSFAkjIo1b6sCYS1sVmFhhhahKQssRjRT90ITWUk6vvK3RsPGs+M1RuR mV+hO/VvFAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== X-Accept-Language: fr, es, en User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:YTFjODhkZjA5ZjMyZmEyZTBkZGNkYjFlMDY0NjNmYjAwZDQ1ZDU2YQ== X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:162200 Archived-At: Lars Brinkhoff writes: > Stefan Monnier wrote: >> Sounds like CL's approach requires symbols to be present in several >> packages, which might require more changes than I'd like in the way >> obarrays and symbols work. > > When I did my implementation of CL packages, I did consider using > obarrays for the symbol table. But as you say, they are not quite > suitable for that because a symbol may have to be interned in more > than one package. Whereas an Emacs symbol may only be intered in one > obarray. Or so I vaguely recall. That must be another reason, because it's not the case. See my previous message. > Like I wrote before, I'm ready to "port" my code to a be a proper part > of Emacs, but not if it's considered a no-go from the start. Your code has the advantage over mine of being written in emacs lisp already :-) -- __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