RetroSearch Browse

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2022-11/msg00476.html below:

Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] From: Yuri Khan Subject: Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 12:42:24 +0700

On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 11:04, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

> There was a feature that let you specify, in one package FOO, "Let me
> omit package prefixes when I refer to symbols from package BAR."

> The general idea is a nice one, but it doesn't work in Lisp.

This feature exists in C++, Python, Scala, and many other languages,
and most code style guides frown upon using it, for the very reasons
you cite. It is tolerated sometimes for tightly coupled modules, like
a library and its automated tests, or a public interface module of a
library importing its internal implementation modules wholesale.

Point is: wholesale import is a sharp tool best reserved for very
special circumstances.

Re: A short defense of shorthands.el (but CL packages are still better), (continued)
- Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Richard Stallman, 2022/11/02
  - Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages, Michael Albinus, 2022/11/03

Prev by Date: Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages
Next by Date: Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages
Previous by thread: Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages
Next by thread: Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

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