Hello Vladimir, thank you very much for your quick answer.
> One way to do it is to use the :shadowing-import-from option ... > (: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. Which is clearly suboptimal, IMO. >> 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. Well, AFAIU the symbols _identity_ (as seen by EQ) is important; so, if parenscript would import the symbols from alexandria and iterate, there should be no change in behaviour, right? The disadvantage to that solution is that there's a load order dependency; and simply requiring alexandria, iterate, and other libraries for parenscript is bad, too, because they might not actually be needed. Another way I see would be to use the symbol name (like eg. LOOP does) - don't use the package, but eg. do (EQUAL (SYMBOL-NAME sym) "FOR"). For user-defined functions and so on there's clearly a need to support multiple packages; but for the keywords that might work. Opinions? Regards, Phil _______________________________________________ parenscript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
