RE: CommonLisp namespace system (was Re: adding namespaces to emacs-lisp (better elisp?))

[Drew Adams]

> > However, in practice I don't think there's any difficulty of using the
> > name to mean both things, just a small overlap during discussions.
> 
> I guess I would have to agree with that.  It would proabably be workable.
> 
> That said, it would be better to change the terminology for package.el -
> e.g., when we introduce CL-style "packages".

Probably quite workable, actually.

If we don't change the "package" terminology for package.el, here is one 
proposal for referring to package.el packages vs Common Lisp packages:

* Use "library package" for packages of libraries.

* Use "symbol package" for packages of symbols.

Of course, if function and variable names included the qualifiers then
that would aid discovery etc.  But we could still try to have aliases
to the Common Lisp functions & variables (which do not include "symbol"
in the name) for any Emacs Lisp versions that are close enough.