Richard Stallman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> > I don't agree. Symbols are at the heart of Lisp. Changing their
> > semantics is a big deal, and as soon as that features is in, it will be
> > used.
> The shorthands feature is already installed, but it doesn't change the
> sematics of symbols.
I don't agree. Before shorthands, a symbol had one name, after, it can
This is incorrect. You're confusing the text manifestation of a symbol in a Lisp form before it is read (as in CL:READ) with the symbol itself, which has only one name. This didn't and couldn't change with shorthands.
Deciding to use it not use a shorthand is no different from deciding to use or not use package qualification for a symbol in CL packages.
Neither changes the name of a symbol, just the manifestation is different. If you force them to be the same thing, then no namespacing symbol is possible at all
If you conflate symbol name and symbol designation/manifestation in source files , you'll have problems implementing any package system (CL, shorthands, whatever) and you confuse people trying to understand any Lisp package system, i.e. you confuse this discussion. Let's try to avoid that :)