Hi Henrik, >>> (func> '+Kadabra arg1 arg2) >>> >>> is shorter than: >>> >>> (foo.bar.blabla.abra.kadabra.func arg1 arg2)
>> no, it's similar to (Kadabra.func arg1 arg2). >> >> (func> '+Foo.bar.blabla.abra.kadabra arg1 arg2) is similar to >> (foo.bar.blabla.abra.kadabra.func arg1 arg2). > My example implied that +Kadabra is a sublass of a sublcass and so on up to > +Foo. ok. But it still doesn't solve the nature of the problem you are trying to address. It only shifts it a bit. Instead of having potential function name clashes, now you have potential class name clashes. +Foo still must be unique in the whole picolisp process. How is that better than func being unique in the whole picolisp process? Cheers, Tomas -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
