one question with regards to this topic:
what would be the advantage of namespaces in Picolisp over
namingconventions like in Emacs Lisp?
'gnus-function-name' for all functions in gnus library
'dired-function-name' for all functions in dired library etc
That seems to work quite well in Emacs for decades now, and has the
advantage to keep things simpler, since there is one concept less build
into the system.
Just being curious
Tomas Hlavaty <t...@logand.com> writes:
> Hi Alex,
>>> for namespaces convenient. Scheme implementations provide an import
>>> statement that let's you include symbols from one namespace into your
>>> current one. This is not yet exciting but you can manipulate the
>>> symbols during this import:
>>> - prefixing them
>>> - renaming them
>>> - filtering out (or in) certain symbols but not all.
>>> I conclude that such procedures are added easily now that symbols
>> Right. This could be done on the Lisp level, but we must be careful.
>> For example, renaming a _symbol_ is possible only for transient
>> symbols, so such a function would need to remove the symbol from all
>> namespaces, rename it, and intern it again.
> Personally I am not a fan of namespaces in picolisp.
> However, once there is support for namespaces, as Christian points out,
> there are other operations that should be supported. It seems to me
> that your suggested implementation solves the problem of symbol name
> clashes, but introduces a new problem of namespace name clashes. Do I
> read that right? One of the most important operations on namespaces
> should be creating a local name (alias) for it. Common Lisp didn't get
> this right, for example, so it would be great if picolisp avoided that