Re: Proper namespaces in Elisp

[Daniel Colascione]

On May 9, 2020 10:25:13 AM Andrea Corallo <address@hidden> wrote:

> Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > On May 9, 2020 1:37:16 AM Andrea Corallo <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> writes:
> > >
> > > > So there are three basic operations we can support: in Python syntax,
> > > > 1) from PKG import * (exposing PKG.foo as foo), 2) import PKG as p
> > > > (exposing PKG.foo as p.foo) and 3), from PKG import foo (exposing
> > > > PKG.foo as foo).  CL supports all three. I'm most interested in
> > > > supporting #2, since that's closest to existing use. The lexspace
> > > > prototype posted earlier today supports #3 and #1 (the latter via
> > > > lexspace inheritance) only, but I think we should do #2 instead
> > >
> > > I suspect we'll need all threes anyway.
> >
> > Why? What problem is actually being solved by #1 and #3? If the
> > problem is that package names long enough to avoid collisions are too
> > annoying to type, we can address this problem with #2.
>
> I think #1 would be the way to derive an entire package and add some
> functionality to it without changing the names that you'll finally want
> to re-expose.  Is this correct?

Can you give a concrete example of a situation in which it'd be useful to 
do that? I think other people on the thread are right about discouraging 
bulk naked symbol imports.


> --
> address@hidden