Use uiop:define-package in package section

[kilianmh]

uiop define-package is more flexible with additional clauses and more convenient during development (e.g. when symbols change).

I want to add some examples in the packages page for uiop:define-package.

Currently there are only examples with cl:defpackage.
My question is: Should we add a few examples with uiop:define-package but keep it mostly with cl:defpackage or should we convert most package definitions to uiop:define-package and only showcase few examples of cl:defpackage?

[vindarel]

Hi, I think it's great if we mention it (even required), maybe not in the introductory examples. defpackage works when we begin, after all.

Shall we add a second "packages (advanced)" page?

Presenting define-package's other clauses, the difference in behavior, also shadowing imports would be very useful.

[Jach]

+1 on keeping things the normal cl:defpackage unless otherwise needed.

Extending the existing page would probably be best, as it's already bringing up more advanced topics by the end with locked packages. A simple example I like is in the generic-cl docs: https://gutev.dev/generic-cl/#using_specific_interface

Somewhat related, do you think a section on ASDF package-inferred-system as in #264 would best live in the Systems page, the Packages page, or a separate page? I was thinking it might be useful to have a section in the Packages page on just the style of having a main package(s).lisp file vs. one file, one defpackage, vs. going further with the package-inferred-system feature. Perhaps it's something more relevant for a separate issue as part of some new "Project Organization" page that can collect the various styles and tradeoffs that projects do in the wild.

[vindarel]

yeah I can see that in a new page, otherwise it will trip up newcomers too easily. A "Project Organization" page would fulfill a demand I think.