Hi all,
from time to time, the issue of symbol namespaces (or the lack of them)
in PicoLisp is brought up again.
Personally, I think that namespaces (that is, different sets of interned
symbols in different contexts) may confuse more than they do really
help.
But with transient symbols we do alr
* Alexander Burger [110916 13:45]:
> Any opinions?
Awesome work! Comming from scheme I find the manipulating functions
for namespaces convenient. Scheme implementations provide an import
statement that let's you include symbols from one namespace into
your current one. This is not yet exciting bu
As far as I can tell this makes the (context) thing you implemented before
pretty redundant or is it worth keeping?
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> from time to time, the issue of symbol namespaces (or the lack of them)
> in PicoLisp is brought up again.
>
Hi Christian,
> for namespaces convenient. Scheme implementations provide an import
> statement that let's you include symbols from one namespace into
> your current one. This is not yet exciting but you can manipulate
> the symbols during this import:
>
> - prefixing them
> - renaming them
> - f
Hi Henrik,
> As far as I can tell this makes the (context) thing you implemented before
> pretty redundant or is it worth keeping?
Yes, I would say we forget about that one.
It was a completely different concepts. It didn't implement symbol
namespaces (all symbols were still in the single global
