Re: A prototype for a binding based approach to proper namespaces

[Andrea Corallo]

Helmut Eller <address@hidden> writes:

> I'm not sure that I understand you.
>
> Just do make my point clear(er): functions that accept symbols
> (e.g. face-name) don't know anything about the current lexical
> environments of the caller.  symbol-function is one of them.  The only
> sensible place where symbol-function could search is the global
> environment.
>
> Helmut 

I start to see the issue.

If two libraries are using a symbol to communicate something shouldn't
the definition of this something be imported by both?

Say faces are defined in the 'face' Lexspace, the two libraries should
probably derive from it if they want to communicate using this
definitions.

There are maybe cases where the 'resolve-designator' operator you have
suggested would be necessary but I don't know how common would be that
case.

  Andrea

PS I think practically faces would be in the fundamental Lexspace where
every other is derived from.

-- 
address@hidden