Yo Craig, your message is really hard to read as its formatting is totally broken. I'll try to reconstruct: Craig> One example that shows the "symbol names function" vs "symbol Craig> names variable" problem is Craig> (let ((cons '())) Craig> (push "ghengis" cons) Craig> (push "khubla" cons) Craig> cons) Craig> This is a problem in Scheme because CONS is defined to be a Craig> function for constructing lists. Within this LET it is rebound Craig> to be a variable holding an empty list. In CL, function and Craig> variable bindings are separate. CONS is defined as a function Craig> by the standard, but carries no variable definition [it is Craig> unbound], therefore, LET is free to establish a local variable Craig> binding for CONS and PUSH will not be confused because it will Craig> use the function binding for CONS. This form evaluates Craig> correctly in CL and EL. This indeed shows the CONS example to be poor. The point remains the same, however: What if we bind a variable bound in a macro. Say, *features*? What if a temporary identifier in a macro definition shadows a binding in a use? Craig> One example that can be fixed by use of packages is [Scheme Craig> form]: Craig> If the application really needs a function named CONS with Craig> different behavior [ ... ]that CL's CONS, a new package should be Craig> defined which shadows the CONS symbol [CL form]: You're missing the point: When you're using a macro, you don't know which bindings it refers to. Therefore, you have no handle whatsoever on using the right package magic in order to avoid capture problems. In the examples, I don't *need* to use CONS, it just might happen to be a convenient name. What I would also want is, that, if a macro is defined within a certain package, and I refer to bindings from the macro, that these bindings are relative to the package of definition rather than the package of use, obeying the standard rules of lexical scoping. Not having this (as in CL) introduces other dangers. The fundamental reason for this and many of the other troubles in CL (and ELisp, for that matter), is the persistent confusion between symbols and names. Try explaining this mess to a novice in Lisp, and you'll find out just how confusing it is. Scheme doesn't have this historical baggage. -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla