Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!quintus!pds From: pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Structure editors in common lisp Message-ID: <464@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> Date: 14 Dec 87 19:48:10 GMT References: <1487@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA Lines: 17 Summary: Yup, the problem is with the package system. In article <1487@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>, tgd@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU (Tom Dietterich) writes: > Maybe this just indicates that the real problem is with the > package system... Packages are certainly one aspect of CommonLisp that make incore development painful, if not impossible. Why do they put all SYMBOLS in packages? It's much more natural to think of individual DEFINITIONS as being in packages. That would make it much easier to move them around. The CommonLisp book talks about trying to maintain Write/Read consistency, but doesn't mention that CommonLisp fails to do this because of packages. I won't belabor the point with an example: I'm sure you've all seen them before. -- -Peter Schachte pds@quintus.uucp ...!sun!quintus!pds