Re: [admin] Hosting for GTKlisp
Nikodemus Siivola <nikodemus@random-state.net> writes:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:46:12AM +0200, Mario Mommer wrote:
I wonder if it would be possible to host the project "GTKlisp" (1), stable and sturdy GTK bindings for Common Lisp, at common-lisp.net.
*approves* ;)
Ok, what about the name? "GTKlisp" makes me think of a Lisp implementation of GTK. cl-gtk would really be the best name, I suppose. What about just gtk? If you want "GTKlisp" can I spell it "gtklisp" or do you want the crazycaps in there? Erik.
Erik Enge <eenge@prium.net> writes:
Nikodemus Siivola <nikodemus@random-state.net> writes:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 08:46:12AM +0200, Mario Mommer wrote:
I wonder if it would be possible to host the project "GTKlisp" (1), stable and sturdy GTK bindings for Common Lisp, at common-lisp.net.
*approves* ;)
Ok, what about the name? "GTKlisp" makes me think of a Lisp implementation of GTK.
My other ideas were GTKat ;; A silly pun. lgtk clgtk ;; people could confuse it with cl-gtk gtkcl ;; what's sbcl then? gtkl gtknexus gtk.cl gtk.lisp gtkclb ;; gtk common lisp bindings ;; I think CVS would barf on these: (GTK) :gtk ;; And then there is this one. gtk_lisp_bindingswith_parens ;; another pun. It might even be funny ;; if you ever programmed with gtk :-) could be abbreviated as glbwp.
cl-gtk would really be the best name, I suppose.
I would have used exactly this one, but it is already taken :-(
What about just gtk?
That would be confusing. Besides, I am not sure my bindings will end up being the only one alive.
If you want "GTKlisp" can I spell it "gtklisp" or do you want the crazycaps in there?
To be honest, the naming questions have delayed me asking for hosting. I really don't know wat's the best. I guess that after the the name has converged, the caps aren't important. Regards, Mario
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 03:39:08PM +0200, Mario Mommer wrote:
gtk.lisp
Of the listed ones I like this one the best, but gtk-lisp even more. Rationale: if the project is gtk.lisp, should I REQUIRE :gtk, or gtk.lisp? With gtk-lips it's "obvious". Cheers, -- Nikodemus
Nikodemus Siivola <nikodemus@random-state.net> writes:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 03:39:08PM +0200, Mario Mommer wrote:
gtk.lisp
Of the listed ones I like this one the best, but gtk-lisp even more.
Fair enough. The hyphen has something of a binding too. Let it be named gtk-lisp.
Rationale: if the project is gtk.lisp, should I REQUIRE :gtk, or gtk.lisp? With gtk-lips it's "obvious".
REQUIRE?? Wasn't that deprecated? ;) Regards, Mario.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 07:32:33PM +0200, Mario Mommer wrote:
REQUIRE?? Wasn't that deprecated? ;)
Depracated, smepracated. No-one should rely on it's portablity, but I for one like a certain amount of dwim in my programming environments, thank you. ;) Well, is suppose it's more depracated than remove-if-not &co, which are as good as undepracated. Cheers, -- Nikodemus
participants (3)
-
Erik Enge -
Mario Mommer -
Nikodemus Siivola