[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why :USE sucks in the Common Lisp package system

From: Daniel Colascione
Subject: Re: Why :USE sucks in the Common Lisp package system
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 15:01:07 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0

On 5/9/20 2:55 PM, Michał "phoe" Herda wrote:
Thanks for the welcome.

On 09.05.2020 23:47, João Távora wrote:
But don't _you_ ever use :USE it for packages that you _do_ have
control over?  Like an internal utils package?  Or a test package
that uses the package under testing?  Otherwise I agree with you
about the ":USE abuse".

Of course I do! I've mentioned in my earlier mail,

> or a combination of packages that do not change and we have full control over so we can manually see and resolve the symbol conflicts as they arise

Perhaps that wasn't clear enough from me: I meant that it is fine to :USE packages that are known to not change and to :USE packages that we fully control, such as internal util packages that you mention; and it is fine to combine using the two within a single package.

It's just as easy to use local nicknames here though. I still haven't seen a compelling case for :use that outweighs the risk of imprudent use. Why is prefix-less import of some internal utils package so important? If the utils package and the user of the utils package have the same author, they can just share a namespace instead of one using the other.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]