Re: [STUMP] interactive command in symbol plist

[Shawn Betts]

>  Using symbol-plist means it's possible to take advantage of the
>  package system. Using hash, we are effectively back to a single
>  namespace. As mechanisms, there's no difference between the two. But
>  with package it's much easier for library writers to avoid naming
>  conflict.
>
>  Else we'd have to prefix every defnitions with the package name, as in
>  Emacs. Which sucks...

command names are symbols, so they do belong to a package. But when
you use them interactively they're converted to a string. If you mean
that the package would prefix the command name then the only
difference would be a : vs a -. I fail to see how using the
symbol-plist would benefit. It seems it would be slower than a hash
because you'd have to search all packages and all symbols and it would
mean reimplementing something that works fine already.

-Shawn