> I would appreciate it if you stop replying to my suggestion with
> sarcastic misinterpretations, and discuss the issue with other
> programmers in #lisp
I was not being sarcastic now. I didn't understand what the
recommendation was. From reading our exchange I thought
it was the exact opposite.
> > No there aren't, short of _not_ providing namespace merging.
> > There's no point in explaining this again, I think.
> I don't know why you are claiming this, considering that you
> previously suggested an excellent solution.
Because but it's not a "solution" to the problem. A solution
to the potential would make sure it never happens. The only
way to do that is to make sure is to never merge. But OK,
this is semantics: you call "good practices" a solution, that's
> So you see, by engaging in constructive exploration of the design
> space, you helped to make what I think is a major contribution to
> namespace system design and to Common Lisp.
victory dance :-)
> I am going to start using
> this pattern in my own code, and I hope any future Lisp that wants to
> adopt a Common Lisp-style package system uses this modified design.
No nicknames, no :USE or little on. Seem decent. One fine day
you'll see a use for :USE, I'm sure.
> And the COMMON-LISP package has not changed since 1994.
> This is not the case for Elisp.
> One way to address this issue is to version Elisp namespaces to major
> Emacs versions: elisp29, elisp30, etc.
That's a clever solution, indeed.
> I think this is a much better reason for having a namespace system
> than "I don't want to use autocomplete to type long symbol names."
Whatever works for you. But I have my reasons not to want to
want a prefix repeated ad aeternum (and do use autocomplete).
> which there seems to be no shortage written every day), so why bother
> having it and its many downsides when better alternatives are
Larger programs have many packages. :USE really is useful
for internal packages, for example. One common example is the
FOO-TEST that has the tests for the FOO package. Or when the
FOO package uses the FOO-UTILS package which has internal
and external stuff. Those are two examples from the top of my
head where I most heartily recommend :USE.
But there are more, when one realizes packages are collections
of symbols, not necessarily definitions.
Also last time I checked package-local nicknames weren't widely
available in impls, so I don't use them. Maybe that has changed
in the meantime?