> one question with regards to this topic:
> what would be the advantage of namespaces in Picolisp over
> namingconventions like in Emacs Lisp?
Right. Not much.
> 'gnus-function-name' for all functions in gnus library
> 'dired-function-name' for all functions in dired library etc
Yes. Such conventions make things transparent. The drawback might just
be readability of the longish symbol names.
I suggested something like this in my reply to Henrik (on Sep 5th, using
the 'dot' as a delimiter):
> A call like
> (foo> '+Pckg <arg>)
> is in no regard more encapsulating the namespace then
> (foo.Pckg <arg>)