Re: Help sought understanding shorthands wrt modules/packages

[Gerd Möllmann]

João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com> writes:

> You can make some tests.  If one goes boom, then we'll know for sure.
> If none go boom, well, it's a good indication, but it's very hard to
> prove a negative.  I mean, can you really prove Emacs didn't cause the
> Hindeburg??

Now that you say it, I think it blew up Northstream :-).

Nah, I'd rather procrastinate.

>> (c) I might have an idea how do things differently to achieve
>> backwards-compatibility.  To what extent that works, or if it works at
>> all, I also don't know, and likely won't find out any time soon.
>>
>>> But even if the read logic didn't do that, and considered the two
>>> systems at once, I'm still not sure there would be any ambiguity.
>>
>> From my point of view, the gist of the matter is
>> backwards-compatibility.  That's the pain part.
>
> To be honest, I don't think you should focus effort on this.  Just
> declare shorthands out of bounds when CL packages are used, and then go
> move on with your project.

I could and maybe I would, but I've lost interest.

Maybe you've encountered that yourself, as a programmer?  You suddenly
realize at some point that the interesting part of a project is over,
and all what follows will be boring?  That's kind of where I am.