Hi, [I am posting this as a regular Common Lisper, not as a CDR editor.] The specification of generic hash tables misses a specification of the package in which the functionality is to be found. The reference implementation defines a package net.hexapodia.hashtables with a nickname genhash. This should, IMHO, be part of the specification. Otherwise, we get into the situation as with the CLOS MOP, where each implementation uses its own package name for some semi-standard library. (This is admittedly not a serious issue, but it is inconvenient nonetheless.) On a more general note: Do we need a more general mechanism for assigning package names? One potential problem I see coming up is that each CDR uses its own package name, which could lead to a proliferation of package names which in turn is also quite inconvenient. Do we need a common CDR package for collecting different CDR proposals? This might be impractical as well because we (intentionally) do not have a way to approve CDRs. How would we avoid name clashes across different CDRs? Any ideas? Pascal -- Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc@p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium