3 ms·
RMS's reasoning seems pretty honest. He thinks namespaces are probably meant for small modules with few names referring to other small modules. He seems to thin
by shanemhansen 12y ago
RMS's reasoning seems pretty honest. He thinks namespaces are probably meant for small modules with few names referring to other small modules. He seems to think emacs is nowhere near having small decoupled modules with few dependencies.
- lispm 12y agoPackages on the Lisp Machine could be large with hundreds or even thousands of symbols.
- tree_of_item 12y agoThis is probably why packages on the Lisp Machine were useless, according to RMS.
- lispm 12y agoWhat now? Too large, too small? Packages were far from useless in my experience.
- tree_of_item 12y agoRMS's position is that big packages = useless since you can't import and would have to qualify, and that both the Lisp Machines and GNU/Emacs would have mostly big packages.
- lispm 12y agoThat makes no sense. The Lisp Machine has lots of different packages sizes. Also large packages were used/imported...
- nwp90 12y agoThe earlier message in the same thread explains more concisely why he did not implement namespaces: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-12/msg00772.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-12/msg007...