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