On Sep 14, Joe Marshall wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, they "work" for some *very* weak definition of "work".
> > Specifically about the two cases:
> >
> > 1. In this case CL just throws its hands in the air and provides
> > absolutely no abstraction barriers. Any function in any package is
> > *always* available to *any* code. (And yes, I know how CL
> > advocates defend this, and I know the "thieves" quote. It's still
> > broken.)
>
> Just because the language doesn't have a draconian enforcement
> mechanism doesn't mean that it isn't an abstraction barrier. [...]
As you say below, it isn't a *barrier*,
> The abstraction `barrier' in the CL package system is more of
> an abstraction `speed bump', but it isn't absent altogether.
but a speed bump -- one that everybody flies over. (At least I've
never seen a code walker or a reader that prohibited these things, but
I did see code that does use `::'s.)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
