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