Showing content from https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2022-11/msg00405.html below:
Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] From: Matt Armstrong Subject: Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2022 16:27:21 -0800
João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 3:13 AM Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> If CL packages still have the misfeature of searching a list of
>> packages for one that has a symbol 'foobar' in it, and deciding what
>> `foobar' in your code means based on that, then they are inexcusable
>> bad design and we must not implement them.
>>
>> If they no longer have that misfeature, maybe they are ok.
>
> If you're talking about the :USE directive, you don't have to employ
> it: it's not mandatory for CL packages to be immensely better. But
> it's very useful and convenient in specific, well-understood
> situations. If you're talking about something else, I don't know what
> it might me.
My understanding is that Richard is concerned about ambiguities, perhaps
not even flagged as errors at load time, that occurred in a version of
CL packages he implemented or otherwise worked with in the past, but
that may no longer occur in Common Lisp implementations conforming to
the newest standard. I believe he described the "misfeature" he is
concerned about more clearly in
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2022-10/msg02165.html.
There, I think Gerd made the convincing argument that the situation is
acceptable in current CL standards.
If so, then Richard may be closer to a "maybe they are ok" judgment
about CL packages than he has been in decades. ;-)
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, (continued)
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Gerd Möllmann, 2022/11/03
- A short defense of shorthands.el (but CL packages are still better) (Was: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages), João Távora, 2022/11/03
- Re: A short defense of shorthands.el (but CL packages are still better) (Was: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages), Richard Stallman, 2022/11/03
- Re: A short defense of shorthands.el (but CL packages are still better), João Távora, 2022/11/04
- Re: A short defense of shorthands.el (but CL packages are still better), Richard Stallman, 2022/11/07
- Re: A short defense of shorthands.el (but CL packages are still better), João Távora, 2022/11/07
- Re: A short defense of shorthands.el (but CL packages are still better), Richard Stallman, 2022/11/08
- Re: A short defense of shorthands.el (but CL packages are still better), João Távora, 2022/11/08
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Richard Stallman, 2022/11/04
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, João Távora, 2022/11/06
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Matt Armstrong <=
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, João Távora, 2022/11/07
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Gerd Möllmann, 2022/11/08
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Richard Stallman, 2022/11/08
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Yuri Khan, 2022/11/09
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, tomas, 2022/11/09
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Matt Armstrong, 2022/11/09
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Juanma Barranquero, 2022/11/09
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Gerd Möllmann, 2022/11/09
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Helmut Eller, 2022/11/09
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Matt Armstrong, 2022/11/09
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo
| Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4