<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 20, 2012, at 20:58 , Didier Verna wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Pascal Costanza wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">I checked the existing threads on this topic (not sure if I was exhaustive).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">There are two elements being proposed: (a) having something like<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">:cdr-nnn in *features*, and (b) having a standard package naming<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">mechanism. One suggestion actually was to have :cdr-nnn also as a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">package name.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">It seems to me that :cdr-nnn for *features* is straightforward and no<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">objections were ever raised, as far as I can tell. :cdr-nnn as package<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">name seems more dubious to me, but that's just my personal opinion.<br></blockquote><br> About the package idea, see also this thread stated by Juanjo on the<br>ECL mailing list:<br><a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net/msg01225.html">http://www.mail-archive.com/ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net/msg01225.html</a><br><br> There are a couple of very good arguments from Pascal Bourguignon in<br>favor of using packages for CDRs defining new symbols (although I find<br>his criticisms a little exagerated; we don't have to deal with soooo<br>many Lisp implementations after all). But in any case, I think he's<br>right.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I am kind of vary about using packages (or package nicknames) mandated as part of CDR; not because I disagree with PB, but because once you start talking about packages, you need to talk about naming conventions and conflicts.</div><div><br></div><div>I am all for using the CDR-NNN in *features* of course.</div><div><br></div><div>I could write a CDR about "package naming", but that would mean that CDR should agree on *a* naming convention - a CDR in itself - and assume that the underlying implementation signals nicknames conflicts - yet another CDR.</div><div><br></div><div>The bare bone version of such thing is</div><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Andale Mono'">(defpackage "IT.UNIMIB.DISCO.MA.MY-CDR-42-IMPLEMENTATION" (:use …)</font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Andale Mono'"> (:nicknames "THE-CDR-AGREED-UPON-MEANINGFUL-AND-MAYBE-HIERARCHICAL-NAME" "CDR-42" …)</font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Andale Mono'"> (:export …)</font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Andale Mono'"> …)</font></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div>--</div><div>MA</div><div><br></div></div><br></body></html>