Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages

[João Távora]

Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:

> As João explained, shorthands was added mainly for the benefit of s.el
> and dash.el (none of which uses it yet, I think?).  But it was not clear
> from the discussion at the time that it was to be extended into a
> general module system.

I wasn't and it cannot be extended into a general module system.  Emacs
already has one always has, albeit one with severe limitations and based
on cumbersome and easy-to-break convention.  Shorthands are just a way
to make live slightly easier within it.

> That's a more recent development.  Until and
> unless changes in that direction have been installed, it seems premature
> to talk about sailing ships.

FWIW I don't agree with those changes, it seems like they would lead to
truly odd situations like having an el file load different sets of
symbols depending on how it is loaded (what happens if one M-. to a
definition, fixes a bug, and types C-M-x?)

But even if they are installed, I don't think they negate the need for
CL packages or make them any harder to implement.

João