Re: Packages

[Sean.Engelson@cad.cs.cmu.edu]

	Date: Mon, 1 Dec 86 16:25 EST
	From: Soley@MIT-XX.ARPA
	Subject: Packages
	To: Sean.Engelson@cad.cs.cmu.edu, common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA

		.......

	Are you saying that (eql #'FOO:QUUX #'BAR:QUUX) => NIL, but (eql
	'FOO:QUUX 'BAR:QUUX) => T ??  

	First (to say it politely) I don't see how your solution solves
	anything.  Second, the more obvious solution of making (EQL 'FOO:QUUX
	'BAR:QUUX) => T is (1) uneconomical, and (2) unteachable in the
	presence of (eql #'FOO:QUUX #'BAR:QUUX) => NIL.  



I guess my idea wasn't well-worded.  Let me try to clarify.  I would
remove any association of symbols to packages, thus there would be no
FU:QUUX, there would just be QUUX.  However, QUUX's value and function
would be attached to packages, thus we could speak of QUUX's function
in package FU, or QUUX's value in package BAR.  Thus we have separate
name spaces for functions and values, without the ridiculosity of
having to do interning, or string coercion whenever comparison of
symbols is needed.

		-Sean Engelson-