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

[Sebastian Wiesner <lunaryorn@gmail.com>]

2013/7/26 Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>:
>> In Emacs world, we use "package" to mean something different from what
>> CL "package" means.
>
> That's a very recent introduction to the "Emacs world".  Hardly much of
> a precedent.  "In [the] Emacs world" is a pretty bold way of describing
> something we just introduced, as if it were essential to what Emacs Lisp
> has always been.  It is a recent add-on - a welcome one, but hardly core.

As a developer of Emacs Lisp extensions, I consider package.el a core
addon, no matter how old it is.  I think it's the only more or less
sane and comfortable way to distribute Emacs Lisp code, and I see it
being used by many Emacs Lisp developers as primary distribution
channel for their libraries.

Imho, adding package.el to Emacs has boosted the productivity of the
Emacs community more than any past attempt to make Emacs Lisp more
Common Lisp.

> And the question here is not about abandoning package.el etc.  It is
> about the terminology: "package".  Who heard of Emacs "packages" a few
> years ago?  Contrast that with who had heard of Common Lisp "packages".

That's a bold saying, too.  I doubt that even Common Lisp itself has
much relevance to many Emacs users.  I doubt even that it's known to
many.