[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: [External] : Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/pa

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: [External] : Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 22:51:15 +0000

> Perhaps "shadow" or "shadowing-import" amount
> to the construct I was envisioning.  I saw
> those terms only today, and I don't know what
> they mean.

FWIW, I'd (passively) like to see this topic progress.

I was thinking that the back & forth in this thread
was  starting to be helpful.  I'm sorry to see it
dropped (apparently).  Maybe it's a hard slog, but
maybe it's a slog worth working through.

If Richard, Gerd, and whomever else would lock
themselves together in a room (virtual or real) for
a weekend and come to senses & consensus, that
might result in a Hallelujah, maybe even a Eureka!,
moment.  Might or might not.  In lieu of that room,
there's this thread...

How about it?  How about hassling a bit more over
coming up with something useful for Emacs Lisp?  It
doesn't need to be CL-compatible.  Maybe it doesn't
need to be Elisp backward-compatible.  What it
should be, I think, is what's most useful for Elisp
(its future) - and Emacs users.

Some CL homework maybe wouldn't hurt.  If you (RMS)
saw the term "shadow" only today (a week ago) then
maybe it's time to catch up on CL packages as
they've been for a few decades now.  Just sayin' - 
wouldn't hurt.  And yes, your arguments are good
ones - thanks for helping advance the schmilblick.

CL's consistency rules:


Shadowing and name conflicts:



CL package functions, altogether:



Now go DTRT! ;-)


And then, for better or worse, there are modules...
Those are more like what Emacs calls "packages", no?


reply via email to

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