RE: [External] : Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages

[Drew Adams]

> > FWIW, I'd (passively) like to see this topic progress.
> 
> What kind of progress?  Is deciding that we don't (yet) need packages in
> Emacs Lisp going to be considered "progress" in your opinion?

To me, progress on the question would include more
investigation and discussion.  It's not just about
deciding.

But if such a decision has already been made, so
be it.  I didn't realize that the question was
closed.

> > If Richard, Gerd, and whomever else would lock
> > themselves together in a room (virtual or real) for
> > a weekend and come to senses & consensus, that
> > might result in a Hallelujah, maybe even a Eureka!,
> > moment.  Might or might not.  In lieu of that room,
> > there's this thread...
> 
> Sorry, but it isn't just up to Richard and Gerd.  

Sorry, but I didn't say or suggest that _anything_
was up to Richard and Gerd, let alone just up to
them.

> As I wrote at the
> beginning of this thread, I'm not convinced we need this kind of
> functionality in Emacs Lisp (and I explained why I thought so).

What kind of functionality is "this kind"?  Would
you mind repeating that, if you explained it, and
summarizing your "why" - or else point to where
you've already done that?

If you decided (e.g., at the outset) that this
kind of functionality isn't needed, I guess I
missed that announcement.  But what kind?  Just
CL packages, or anything at all that resembles
them?  Or any attempt to improve handling of
namespaces?

Certainly, if there's no problem then there's no
need to look for a solution.  I didn't realize
that the premise had been decided.

> Until someone comes up with convincing arguments, I still submit that adding
> this kind of complexity into Emacs internals for the sake of functionality
> that is not really needed is not a good idea.  (And no, "CL has it" is not a
> convincing argument in my book.)

I see.  So be it.

Did someone say that "CL has it" is a convincing
argument for why Elisp should have it - whatever
you might think "it" is?  I don't think so.

In any case, given that you're not yet convinced
of a need/use for better namespace control, and
given that Gerd's given up, I guess that if there
is such a need/benefit then the question will be
off the table for a while.  Thanks for making
this clear - I missed it.