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

[David Engster]

Bastien writes:
> You can have namespaces clashes too, it's purely conventional.
>
> So to me the only complaint is about symbols' length.
>
> But is that really such a big problem?
>
> The common practice for Emacs Lisp seems to favor explicit and long
> names over terse and hard-to-decipher ones.  I guess the length of
> the symbols is more due to this (good) practice than to the length
> of prefixes.

For me, the main problem with the length of symbols is that I
intuitively tend to avoid writing them. For instance, I usually avoid
using defstructs for nicely wrapping global state, because always
writing things like

(setf (my-prefix-struct-somevalue my-prefix--struct) 'foobar)

is just verbose and tiresome.

-David