Imagine the annoyance when our application appeared to be full of hierarchical packages, when in fact it wasn't. Oh, such fun we all had.
- nick > On 29 Dec 2015, at 23:52, Alessio Stalla <alessiosta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I'd like to run a little poll among experienced Lisp developers. The topic is > the usage in the wild of the extensions to the package system provided by > various implementations. My apologies to people who are subscribed to the > ABCL mailing list, where some time ago I submitted the same questions getting > back several insightful answers but no actual data. > > So, here is how it is. I'm working on a novel idea (I hope) regarding symbols > and packages; I won't go into the details now. It suffices to say that there > is some overlap with features offered by certain Lisp implementations, namely: > > * package-local nicknames: the ability to specify, for each package, a list > of nicknames for other packages which are in effect only in that package; > available on ABCL and SBCL > (http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Package_002dLocal-Nicknames) and possibly other > implementations I'm not aware of. > * "Hierarchical" packages: a naming convention for packages understood by > the reader and a few support functions, which allow to have concise nicknames > for a group of closely related packages, such as com.foo.mylib.api and > com.foo.mylib.implementation. Found natively in Allegro CL > (http://franz.com/support/documentation/current/doc/packages.htm) and in an > open-source library by P. Bourguignon. > > My questions: > 1) First and foremost, is anybody actually using those features? What are you > using them for? > 2) If yes, how useful are they for you? What shortcomings do you find in them?
