libera/#sicl - IRC Chatlog
Search
9:50:58
beach
Tell me whether this idea is flawed: I am working on a library that I call Common Macros, which is supposed to contain definitions of most of the macros used by some typical Common Lisp code. And I want those macros to expand to portable code as much as possible.
9:51:05
beach
But some expansion like those of DEFCLASS and DEFMETHOD contain symbols that are not in the Common Lisp package but in some implementation-specific package that contains MOP code.
9:51:06
beach
So what if my library were to depend on CLOSER-MOP, and I use the CLOSER-MOP package for those symbols?
9:52:00
beach
I would have to load the CLOSER-MOP system with the right *FEATURES* for cross compilation of course.
9:56:54
beach
Alternative idea: I decide on a particular package name that client code will then have to create and fill in with MOP symbols.
10:05:36
pjb
beach: otherwise, imposing your own package name would be OK to, up to the client to set it up as a conduit package to their implementation of the library.