Re: [comp.lang.lisp] Re: accessor name clashes when using packages

[Dirk Herrmann]

On 8 Sep 2001, Gary Houston wrote:

> The problem of conflicting definitions doesn't seem to have a good
> solution yet.  Some observations:
[...]
> Based on these observations, it seems that neither the current behaviour
> nor the proposed error-on-conflict change is ideal.
> 
> Are there any alternatives that could be considered?  E.g., would it
> be practical to allow a module to specify that a particular definition
> always overrides a definition some other module, unless stated otherwise
> in the use-modules statement?   Since use-modules has the job of 
> modifying the bindings in the current module, it should be possible for
> it to remove a conflicting import without ambiguity.

To me it still seems that it would be a good idea to demand an explicit
import of the desired bindings from each imported module.  I can't help
it, but with every discussion about problems with conflicts arising with
implicit imports, I get the impression that a lot of problems could be
avoided with such a policy.  However, such a policy does not address all
of your points:  "It should be easy to use the SRFI modules without
needing to deal with every conflicting definition explicitly."  This could
not be done implicitly with the above solution.  Some of the hassle could,
however, be simplified by using concepts as signatures (just given as an
example - don't want to start that particular discussion again :-).

Best regards
Dirk Herrmann