[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: is requiring cl bad?
From: |
Ivan Kanis |
Subject: |
Re: is requiring cl bad? |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Dec 2012 06:20:14 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
David De La Harpe Golden <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 17/12/12 19:09, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
>>> 24.3 finally provides an alternative: `cl-lib' which offers the
>>> same functionality but in a namespace-clean way (i.e. using a "cl-"
>>> prefix everywhere).
>>
>> This is a silly solution.
>> The right solution is to implement a package system.
>>
> If emacs ever did go toward adding new facilities in the general area
> of modularity (however unlikely it is in reality in the near future),
Sounds like a good candidate for emacs 25. Someone complained we didn't
have a roadmap... ;)
> I reckon Ron Garret's common lisp land "lexicons" work [1]
Thanks for the link, I will read it later.
--
Ivan Kanis
http://ivan.kanis.fr
Temporary routing anomaly.
-- BOFH excuse number 35
- is requiring cl bad?, Ivan Kanis, 2012/12/16
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Xue Fuqiao, 2012/12/16
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Stefan Monnier, 2012/12/16
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2012/12/17
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Tony Day, 2012/12/17
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, David De La Harpe Golden, 2012/12/19
- Re: is requiring cl bad?,
Ivan Kanis <=
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Helmut Eller, 2012/12/20
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, David De La Harpe Golden, 2012/12/21
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Helmut Eller, 2012/12/21
Re: is requiring cl bad?, Ivan Kanis, 2012/12/17