Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wiley!wilbur.coyote.trw.com!scott
From: scott@wilbur.coyote.trw.com (Scott Simpson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Common Lisp Package System Considered Harmful
Keywords: Packages, CLOS, Object-Oriented Programming, Common Lisp
Message-ID: <271F789E.746D@wilbur.coyote.trw.com>
Date: 19 Oct 90 22:05:18 GMT
References: <271BA6D1.5B83@wilbur.coyote.trw.com>>> <271E0D40.451E@wilbur.coyote.trw.com> <1990Oct18.152453.7100@hellgate.utah.edu>
Sender: news@wilbur.coyote.trw.com (News Software)
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 35

In article <1990Oct18.152453.7100@hellgate.utah.edu> moore%cdr.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Tim Moore) writes:
>I don't see what the problem is. If you don't want to get burned by
>using internal functions and data structures, don't use them. I think
>it's great that data structures are exposed in Lisp, if only to
>satisfy my own curiosity.  One of the first things I do when I use a
>Common Lisp implementation for the first time is type (symbol-plist '+)
>to see what turns up.  (Maybe that comes after (time (fact 1000)) :-)

I don't think that back doors aren't useful, I am just concerned about
them being the default.

>That's not what he said at all. The basic idea behind packages is that
>it's not too hard to avoid name collisions in your own code, or even
>within an "application" (you can use grep, after all), but it is hard
>to avoid collisions with other random programs that might be loaded in
>the same Lisp image. For one program, one or two packages is about right.

I don't think grep is a great way to discover name collisions! Surely
we can come up with something better. Browsers perhaps?

>Because of "ease of use and language protection". Ease of use and
>information hiding are orthogonal (and in my biased opinion, inversely
>proportional).

Not necessarily. I see your point but I am not so black and white on
the issue.

In article <359@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>If you expect packages to give you the same capabilities you
>have in Eiffel or Ada, you are bound to be disappointed.  

Yes. I have come to this conclusion. Since I don't want to beat a dead
horse, I will drop this thread after this message.
--
Scott Simpson			TRW			scott@coyote.trw.com