Having lots of packages with extensions.

["BACH::GREEK" <greek%bach.decnet@hudson.dec.com>]

In response to Mr. Weinreb:

Yes, I was clearly being too general.  I agree that there may be lots
of packages provided by a company with their Common LISP.  Not all of 
the public symbols in these packages want to be imported into some 
"extensions" package.  We certainly have such packages in VAX LISP.

I'm thinking more of general extensions that are used at top level for 
various random things.  Those symbols that a person would expect to just 
have at top level in the USER package without having to use some special 
package or package prefix.  Symbols which fall into the category of ED 
or DEBUG or the like.  This is the reason Common LISP defined ED to 
invoke the editor rather than just saying that "there might be an 
editor."

Perhaps this is simply too nebulous to define.  I'd be happy, I guess, 
if we just said that the LISP package contains exactly Common LISP and 
lots of other packages might exist with various extra goodies.  I sure 
feel uncomfortable, however, if we don't at least say that all those 
extra packages follow some naming convention, like SYSTEM-xxx.  
Otherwise a layered product simply does not know what names it can use 
for its packages.

Furthermore, if we say that there can be arbitrary packages with 
extensions, then what the hell are we bothering to define the SYSTEM 
package for?

- Paul 
------