I thought we would need to separate the maxima-user-package (or
namespace) from anything the common lisp systems might implement, and so
we would pre-pend maxima-user:: to anything from the top-level.
I think "relative packages" is the correct term for Allegro as well.
RJF
Raymond Toy wrote:
>>>>>>"Richard" == Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
> Richard> <snip>
>
> Richard> I was thinking that the @ syntax would be at the user top level, but the
> Richard> common lisp syntax would be the same underneath, using : or ::. But maybe
> Richard> this doesn't really hold up unless you have nested packages. That is, you
> Richard> would have maxima-user::packagename::symbolname in lisp, that
> Richard> would correspond to packagename@@symbolname at the top level.
>
>What's wrong with just packagename::symbolname? Do we really need
>nested packages?
>
> Richard> Allegro CL actually has nested packages, but that is an extension to CL.
>
>As does CMUCL. Or perhaps that's relative packages, which might be
>different. I can't remember.
>
>Ray
>
>_______________________________________________
>Maxima mailing list
>Maxima at math.utexas.edu
>http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>
>