All this discussion is fine. FWIW I kinda like the idea of hierarchical packages although I have not really have had much use for them up to now; and, having dealt with Java, I know how easy they get out of hand. Package-local nicknames would be very nice indeed, and a must once you have hierarchical packages, but I fear that anything that required too much developers’ work (beyond SBCL) leaves the time it finds.
Having said that, I move that a *spec* is *much* more important than an *implementation*. At a minimum to gather in one place all the bits and pieces that the different implementations now have. Writing things down (in CLHS or C standard style) forces one to actually think very well about what is desirable and/or achievable; not to mention the devilish details. Happy New Year — MA > On Dec 30, 2015, at 12:42 , Pascal Costanza <p...@p-cos.net> wrote: > > >> On 30 Dec 2015, at 03:12, Pascal J. Bourguignon <p...@informatimago.com> >> wrote: >> >> On 30/12/15 02:25, Pascal Costanza wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> 1) I believe package-local nicknames are very useful. Being able to use >>> abbreviations and avoiding conflict between nicknames from the use site are >>> just good ideas. >>> >>> 2) I don’t believe hierarchical package names are useful. That’s a Javaism >>> which just makes things too complicated (especially if they then also are >>> reflected by the directory hierarchy - beurk ;). >> You're saying that because there are only 1279 systems in quicklisp so it's >> still manageable as a flat list. But wait a little with tens or hundreds >> more systems and packages! > > No, I’m saying this although there are already 1279 systems in quicklisp. I > actually had to rename a library twice because my name choices clashed with > existing library names, so I understand the problem that people want to > solve. I nevertheless stand by my statement. (I have sufficient experience > with Java to know that this doesn’t help much.) > >> Probably, you've never worked with a big source base with a directory >> hierarchy didn't match the naming scheme. > > You shouldn’t make too many assumptions about other people’s experiences. > >>> Also, I agree with Kenny that splitting libraries into too fine-grained >>> small little packages is not a good recipe for organizing your projects. >>> Lisp packages want to be big, and there is no major disadvantage in doing >>> so, and I fear that hierarchical package names encourage unnecessary >>> fine-grained splitting. That just creates visibility problems, and distract >>> from solving /actual/ problems. >> Agreed. >> >>> Basing package names on domain names provides the illusion that you have >>> unique names, but domain names come and go, companies change owners, >>> repositories move to different hosting servers, etc., etc., so they are not >>> as stable as one might think. If people use sufficiently long package names >>> that can then be renamed locally using package-local nicknames, that’s >>> sufficient, IMHO. >> >> Oh, you're right. Now I see the light. I will therefore rename my >> com.informatimago.* package into 2915BB3ECC3D45029DBF41BD48508E2E.* >> And let's not talk about the 3 or 4 different CLON packages we have... > > I don’t strongly object to hierarchical package names. If that’s what the > community wants, I’m fine with it. Package-local nicknames are more > important, though. I especially would be unhappy if hierarchical package > names were adopted, but package-local nicknames weren’t. > > All IMHO, YMMV, etc., etc. > > ;) > > Pascal > > -- > Pascal Costanza > The views expressed in this email are my own, and not those of my employer. > > > > -- Marco Antoniotti, Associate Professor tel. +39 - 02 64 48 79 01 DISCo, Università Milano Bicocca U14 2043 http://bimib.disco.unimib.it Viale Sarca 336 I-20126 Milan (MI) ITALY Please check: http://ceac.lakecomoschool.org Please note that I am not checking my Spam-box anymore. Please do not forward this email without asking me first.
