Re: [STUMP] Why does `defcommand' export the command symbol?

[Diogo F. S. Ramos]

>> Maybe StumpWM should have two `defcommands'?  One for internal use of
>> StumpWM, which exports symbols, and one for modules, which doesn't?
> No, this is not something I support.  If we're going to all agree that
> defcommand shouldn't export commands, then we need to go back through
> the sources and make sure that each defcommand'ed function is listed in
> the export declaration.  
>
> Two paths forward:
> 1. Keep the export command in and make module writers deal with this
>    edge case.  Diogo, how many times on average would you run into this
>    behavior? This only happens when you redefine the package right? I'm
>    not trying to be dismissive, I really don't know how many times you
>    would have to deal with this.  (My understanding is that you would
>    have to completely reload your StumpWM instance to fix this)

I just noticed it now, when redefining the package.

> 2. Remove the export and manually move the defcommands into the export
>    lines of the packages.  This involves a lot of tedious code changes,
>    (not that I'm opposed). It also puts the responsibility on the person
>    who defcommands to decide whether it should be exported.

Although it makes it a little inconvenient to do certain things, maybe
it makes sense for `defcommand' to export symbols.

I thought of commands like an UI thing, but this is not the only
interpretation.

I say we keep things like they are for now.