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

[Ingvar]

Pascal writes:
> [I am posting this as a regular Common Lisper, not as a CDR editor.]
> 
> The specification of generic hash tables misses a specification of  
> the package in which the functionality is to be found. The reference  
> implementation defines a package net.hexapodia.hashtables with a  
> nickname genhash. This should, IMHO, be part of the specification.  
> Otherwise, we get into the situation as with the CLOS MOP, where each  
> implementation uses its own package name for some semi-standard  
> library. (This is admittedly not a serious issue, but it is  
> inconvenient nonetheless.)

Good point. I believe my intention was taht all functionality would be 
provided from the package designator :GENHASH (that is, as you can see, a 
nickname of the implementation-specific package name). I will make a change to 
CDR 2 right now and aim to have it uploaded by, say, tomorrow (just in case 
something else comes through at the last minute).

> 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.

As long as the CDRs cover "sufficiently different" subject areas, I don't see 
a proliferation of package names to be a problem. At least for myself, I try 
to keep to "one functionality group, one package name", with (possibly) a 
library-user's package importing and re-exporting package names. But, then, I 
am in the habit of NOT using USE-PACKAGE to a great extent.
 
> Do we need a common CDR package for collecting different CDR  
> proposals? This might be impractical as well because we  
> (intentionally) do not have a way to approve CDRs. How would we avoid  
> name clashes across different CDRs?

MMy gut-feel is that an all-encompassing CDR package is the wrong thing, 
though at this moment in time I can't provide a godo argument one way or 
another.

//Ingvar