[cdr-discuss] [CDR 2] What's the package?

[Christophe Rhodes]

Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> writes:

> The specification of generic hash tables misses a specification of
> the package in which the functionality is to be found. 

Not in the version I'm looking at: section 1.2.1 (on the first page)
is clear that the name is GENHASH, no?

> On a more general note: Do we need a more general mechanism for
> assigning package names? One potential problem I see coming up is
> that each CDR uses its own package name, which could lead to a
> proliferation of package names which in turn is also quite
> inconvenient.

Please, no.  If there is demand from users to aggregate
implementations of CDRs into one package, then they can either define
themselves or lobby their vendors to aggregate symbols from disparate
packages into a single package.

> Any ideas?

I don't see why a proliferation of package names is inconvenient; even
if it is, I don't see an already-accepted solution in the community
out there.  (If you know of one, maybe you should write it up as a
CDR... :-)

Cheers,

Christophe