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.


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?


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

Reply via email to