CommonLisp namespace system (was Re: adding namespaces to emacs-lisp (better elisp?))

[Nic Ferrier <nferrier@ferrier.me.uk>]

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

> 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.

I disagree. Emacs isn't CommonLisp, never has been CommonLisp and
very likely, never will be CommonLisp.


> 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.

But at the expense of muddying the waters for people who are not from
that world.

In Emacs world, we use "package" to mean something different from what
CL "package" means. So right at the start that effort is doomed without
a major change to Emacs 24.


> 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.

I am trying to make a namespace system that would be backwards
compatible with Emacs and yet encourage future good behaviour.

CommonLisp terminology or compatibility is not a major aim of mine.


Nic