>>> (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
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?