Hi Craig, Many thanks for the package system explanations. Indeed, all this going back-and-forth between symbols and names confuses me. Craig> It is typically considered bad programming style (in any language) to Craig> make common use of global variables. This is not true. It is bad programming style to use *non-encapsulated* global variables. Of course, a functional programming style is usually preferable. This, however, excludes dynamic binding as well. Craig> One of the main benefits of dynamically binding global Craig> variables is to use them as global parameters which can be Craig> modified within an execution thread and appear as global values Craig> to all the code in the thread, but be completely invisible to Craig> all other threads. I'm not arguing against the benefits of dynamic binding. I am, however, arguing that it is bad design in Common Lisp that a single declaration may inadvertently change the meaning of all bindings to the same naming, even though they may be totally unrelated. Craig> I cannot remember ever needing a nondynamic global variable. You're missing the point. The point is that introducing a dynamic global variable changes the meaning of program constructs which don't have anything to do with the global variable at all. -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla