"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If and only if one considers globally shared mutable namespaces > broken. People with a lispish background don't.
They do: most Lisp derivatives and Scheme implementations have state-of-the-art module systems that provide many ways to avoid name clashes for instance (you probably know the one of Guile). Jonathan might add that Lisp-like languages are (close to?) capability systems. Since all objects, including procedures, are first-class, you rarely need to rely on a global namespace: you can simply pass around objects. In fact, programs should rarely use top-level bindings: these are mostly used when interacting with a user via the REPL for instance. In Guile, it is possible to create "confined" modules that can only see the bindings imposed by R5RS, using `#:pure' [0]. Thanks, Ludovic. [0] http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/docs/guile-ref/Creating-Guile-Modules.html#Creating%20Guile%20Modules _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
