Hi, > Is there a preferred way to handle this? Should I _not_ use parenscript, but > use the PS: > prefix? And for what symbols? PS:DEFUN to get a javascript function defined?
One way to do it is to use the :shadowing-import-from option to DEFPACKAGE to resolve the conflicts by picking which symbols you want to import into your package (http://cliki.net/site/HyperSpec/Body/mac_defpackage.html). Since ps:for is different than alexandria:for, if you (:shadowing-import-from :alexandria #:for), then you'd need to write (ps:for ...for loop...) if you want to write a for loop in Parenscript code. > Or would it be better to make parenscript :USE alexandria and iterate - > AFAICS the > symbols are unbound anyway (the few that I've looked at), so there should be > no problem > importing them? The symbols aren't bound to Common Lisp functions or macros, but they have meaning as special forms or macros for the Parenscript compiler. Vladimir _______________________________________________ parenscript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
