Hi Thorsten,

> 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>)

Cheers,
- Alex
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Reply via email to