On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, C Y wrote:
> (defpackage :maxima-declarations
> (defpackage :maxima-destructuring-let
> (defpackage :maxima-compatibility-macros1
> (defpackage :maxima-compatibility-macros
> (defpackage :maxima-prerequisites
...ad nauseam..
Commenting purely as a style and sanity issue, this sounds like a rather
bad idea. Packages aren't C++ or Java classes, which is what this list
brings to mind. Neither are they build units, which is what these also
sound like -- I would expect these to be filenames, not packages.
Having multiple packages for a project the size of maxima is most likely a
good idea, but unless those package delimit functional units things make
no sense.
I would expect more then a dozen or sopackages to be a mistake unless you
can really justify each and every one of them: if you can write a short
description of the functionality provided by a package that makes sense to
other people as well _and_ in relation to other packages, then it probably
is a package. If not, then something is off the track.
> (defpackage :maxima-TeX
> (defpackage :maxima-plotting
To contrast and compare -- these sound perfectly sensible to me. "TeX
output routines." "Plotting tools."
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus Schemer: "Buddha is small, clean, and serious."
Lispnik: "Buddha is big, has hairy armpits, and laughs."