15 Apr
2014
15 Apr
'14
10 p.m.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Faré <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Lisp hackers,
>
> apparently, Xach thinks the name "package-system" is a bad name for
> the quick-build compatible extension to ASDF that I implemented and is
> going to be released with ASDF 3.1 — see file package-system.lisp, its
> use in lisp-interface-library, and the description in the ASDF manual
> (doc/asdf.texinfo in the master branch). Basic idea: each file starts
> with a defpackage or define-package, the packages it use's or
> import-from's or shadowing-import-from's are detected, each package is
> mapped back to a system, that itself may be mapped to files under a
> package-system.
>
> Before the release is the best time for renaming things. If you have a
> suggestion for a better name, now is the time to speak, not later.
>
> * package-system
> * quick-build
> * system-whose-dependencies-are-deduced-from-defined-package-and-whose-pathname-is-deduced-from-its-name
> * one-package-one-file-one-system
> * not-quite-faslpath
> * gangnam-style
* package-based-system (proposed by rpgoldman)
* package-mapped-system (my variant)
* one-file-one-package-system
* file-package-system
* 1f1ps
* 10ps (1f1 is 10.0)
* electromagnetism (10 picosecond after the Bigbang is when
electromagnetism appears as a separate phenomenon, says Wikipedia)
* ups (unsophisticated package system)
Or maybe, unlike Xach, you *love* the name package-system, and vote
against its renaming.
I don't love the name "package-system", but I admit to preferring it
to Robert's proposed alternative "package-based-system",
and so far the existing name still has my vote.
> I suppose the constraints are that it should not be too long, yet
> somewhat descriptive and not too confusing. Failing that, a brand
> name.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
If you want to do good, work on the technology, not on getting power.
— John McCarthy