Pre-submission discussion: code walking

[Marco Antoniotti]

> On Apr 26, 2019, at 09:05 , Daniel Kochmański <daniel at turtleware.eu> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> My plan for walkability is: compliance with CDR-NN requires having
>> a package with name CDR-NN that has all the symbols defined in CDR-
>> NN.
>> 
> 
> IMHO if CDR's are truly meant as a process to augument standarization
> then all that should be in a single package (with an additional "CDR-
> USER" package which uses CL and CDR and is not locked). That will
> ensure that there are no symbol conflicts and it is indeed a possible
> candidate for inclusion a "base" package. Also too many packages is a
> tedious disease of many systems.
> 


This has been discussed before and it was not quite deemed a very useful approach, as it would mean that you would have single namespace where different implementations of a given CDR would be dumped, possibly causing unwanted misalignments.

Using CDR-XX as a nickname, OTOH would signal a conflict as soon as two possible implementations of a given CDR would be loaded in an image.  I don’t remember the details of the discussion but that is the gist of it.

All in all the CDR process has been as light weight as possible and even so it has been difficult to have the implementations buy into it.

Cheers

--
Marco Antoniotti