[cdr-discuss] CDR follow ups...

[Didier Verna]

Pascal Costanza wrote:

> I checked the existing threads on this topic (not sure if I was exhaustive).
>
> There are two elements being proposed: (a) having something like
> :cdr-nnn in *features*, and (b) having a standard package naming
> mechanism. One suggestion actually was to have :cdr-nnn also as a
> package name.
>
> It seems to me that :cdr-nnn for *features* is straightforward and no
> objections were ever raised, as far as I can tell. :cdr-nnn as package
> name seems more dubious to me, but that's just my personal opinion.

  About the package idea, see also this thread stated by Juanjo on the
ECL mailing list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net/msg01225.html

  There are a couple of very good arguments from Pascal Bourguignon in
favor of using packages for CDRs defining new symbols (although I find
his criticisms a little exagerated; we don't have to deal with soooo
many Lisp implementations after all). But in any case, I think he's
right.

-- 
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.

Scientific site:   http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com