Re: plz -> curl?

[Jonas Bernoulli <jonas@bernoul.li>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> It's always easy to retrospectively decide which package should have
> which name (after the dust has settled and one of the contenders for
> a given name has accrued a decisive advantage), but backward
> compatibility as well as the need to choose a name before the dust has
> settled (which can take a very long time) mean that non-obvious names
> are here to stay.

Using cute names for unproven third-party packages also has the
advantage that the boring authorities name is still available when the
Emacs developers decide to implement "official" support for the same
thing.

And if that is done by adopting an existing solution, then that is the
best time to rename that package and all its symbols.  Downstreams would
still be inconvenienced by such a change but they are likely to be much
more forgiving when it happens at that time.  After all they get
something out of it too; the package they rely on is now the official
solution and less likely to break in backward incompatible ways *going
forward*.

> Instead we need to work on improving discoverability based on other
> things than merely the package name.

Like finder.el? ;D

> ;; These are supposed to correspond to top-level customization groups,
> ;; says rms.
> (defvar finder-known-keywords '( 36 elements))

Maybe we should allow classifying packages into more than three dozen
groups?