Re: adding namespaces to emacs-lisp (better elisp?)

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Lars Brinkhoff <address@hidden> writes:

> Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Sounds like CL's approach requires symbols to be present in several
>> packages, which might require more changes than I'd like in the way
>> obarrays and symbols work.
>
> When I did my implementation of CL packages, I did consider using
> obarrays for the symbol table.  But as you say, they are not quite
> suitable for that because a symbol may have to be interned in more
> than one package.  Whereas an Emacs symbol may only be intered in one
> obarray.  Or so I vaguely recall.

That must be another reason, because it's not the case.  See my previous
message.

> Like I wrote before, I'm ready to "port" my code to a be a proper part
> of Emacs, but not if it's considered a no-go from the start.

Your code has the advantage over mine of being written in emacs lisp
already :-)

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.  
You know you've been lisping too long when you see a recent picture of George 
Lucas and think "Wait, I thought John McCarthy was dead!" -- Dalek_Baldwin