From: Vladimir Zolotykh
Subject: (in-package :FOO)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:39:41 +0000
Message-ID: <3CDFB40D.A568684C@eurocom.od.ua>

Could you name reasons to write in-package the way as it
done in subject (beside personal preferences of course) ? 
In ANSI compliant CL it seems has no effect whether :foo or 
:FOO used. In CL with modern case mode such writing should
be less compatible. So when it could be useful ?

-- 
Vladimir Zolotykh

From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: (in-package :FOO)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 15:41:35 +0000
Message-ID: <P8RD8.12307$a04.56421@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>

On Mon, 13 May 2002 15:39:41 +0300, Vladimir Zolotykh
<······@eurocom.od.ua> wrote:
>Could you name reasons to write in-package the way as it
>done in subject (beside personal preferences of course) ? 
>In ANSI compliant CL it seems has no effect whether :foo or 
>:FOO used. In CL with modern case mode such writing should
>be less compatible. So when it could be useful ?

Both :foo and :FOO are two equally valid printed representations
of the same symbol, whose name is the string "FOO". Here are
some other possible representations:

	'(:|FOO| :\F\Oo :\F\O\O)

On the other hand, (in-package :|foo|) is quite different.

In package naming, symbols are exploited for their name.
You could use a string instead, in which case you must
make it upper case to match the symbol name:

    (in-package "FOO")