Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!LUCID.COM!jonl
From: jonl@LUCID.COM (Jon L White)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.clos
Subject: clos and packages
Message-ID: <9012110830.AA19738@caligula>
Date: 11 Dec 90 08:30:55 GMT
References: <1990Dec11.044210.26810@Think.COM>
Sender: welch@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: inet
Organization: CommonLoops
Lines: 24

re: The concensus is that the package system was designed for
    a small number of large groups, not lots of tiny packages.

I would question the wisdom of this "consensus".  I recall the design
goal of the package system as: it is for a parse-time separation of
identifiers into separate packages rather than for a semantic-analysis-
time separation of object/function/type/etc names.

Given that goal (rather than the one of being only for "large groups"),
it becomes a somewhat interesting question as to whether such-and-such
an application in a more "conventional" computer language (such as ADA?
or MODULA?) should avail itself of lisp packages when being translated
or emulated into Common Lisp.  I can certainly forsee cases where it
is easier and more natural to "put every class into its own package",
even though that would force an inordinate amount (from the Lisp point
of view) of EXPORTing and IMPORTing.


Sigh, I can see that a substantial portion of the traffic on this
discussion list (comp.lang.lisp) will be in exploring and defending
agains the "other" kind of notions for "encapsulation".


-- JonL --