Comment 4 for bug 778760

Jean-Philippe Paradis <email address hidden> writes:

> Package locking is a feature that each individual library must
> explicitly activate for their users to benefit from it.

I don't think that's true: users can lock packages for themselves. (In
order to anticipate your next objection, yes, it's possible that a
library with a locked package in some way doesn't quite function; my
hunch, like yours not backed by a formal survey, is that most would
continue to function just fine).

> The feature I'm proposing would grant a nice level of additional
> protection by default, with zero involvement from libraries. I think
> that's significant and worth considering.

I'm generally against adding additional protection against ordinary,
conforming behaviour with no convenient way for the advanced user to say
"trust me, I know what I'm doing". (People following along with a long
historical view of sbcl development may laugh hollowly at this, but
we've only comparatively recently managed to remove a huge heap of
redefinition warnings that were fantastically annoying; we should think
long and hard before reintroducing them.

Christophe