Comments on: The Naming of Namespaces

By: stuart

stuart — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:35:35 +0000

Alex Says:
Isn’t it already done with packages?

Not exactly. Packages are namespaces but they can’t overlap. A better example of what I was thinking of:

(defmacro bar-macro ((arg1 :namespace bar))
…)

(defmacro quux-macro ((arg2 :namespace quux))
…)

Now I can have a symbol BAR with different definitions in the namespaces BAR and QUUX. Calling (BAR-MACRO FOO) will use the value of FOO in BAR, calling (QUUX-MACRO FOO) will use the value of FOO in QUUX. Overlapping namespaces, without conflicts.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:20:52 +0000

Isn’t it already done with packages?
Like :

(in-package “BLA”)

(defmacro blabla (bla) ….. )

I’m not sure the syntax is correct, but to give the idea, you know.

By: Michael Campbell

Michael Campbell — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:49:16 +0000

I like lisp, although I’m barely more than a rank neophyte with it, but bolstering an argument by misusing the “other” language hardly does anyone any good. Since you’re quoting Java (and with full text justification, gak!), at least use IDIOMATIC java:

;; Assuming an import up here somewhere…, akin to the …with-namespaces)

ActionEvent myEvent = new ActionEvent();

which might still be too wordy for some, it’s a lot less than you make it out to be.

> Everything is kept neatly separated, without endless qualifiers attached to every symbol.

And truly, other languages, including the one you quoted, allow this as well.