Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages

[Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2829 bytes --]

Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes:

> On 5/14/2023 12:33 PM, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
>> Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> I think I need to adjust the passage a bit to emphasize that the
>>> Emacs/ELPA maintainers would *prefer* a simple and straightforward
>>> name like "gobject". ...
>> That would sound acceptable to me.
>
> Ok, how about something like the following? I just expanded it a bit
> to provide more context and adjusted the wording slightly here and
> there (for example, these are now "recommendations" instead of
> "guidelines").
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Naming is hard. However, taking some time to choose a good name for
> your package will help make your package easier to find and to use. To
> assist package authors, here are some recommendations for choosing
> good Emacs package names. Package names should be:
>
>   * Memorable: Aim for short, distinct names that users can easily recall.
>   * Intuitive: Names don't need to fully describe a package, but they
>     should at least provide a hint about what the package does.
>
> For example, suppose I've written a package that provides an interface
> between GObjects and Emacs Lisp, and named it "goeli". This isn't a
> very good name, since it's not easy to remember (users may find
> themselves asking, "Wait... was it 'goli' or 'goeli'?"), and it's
> nearly impossible to guess what it does from the name.
>
> After thinking about it some more, I have a flash of insight: I'll
> call it "goblin" (for _GOb_ject _L_isp _In_terface)! This is easy
> enough to remember, but it's still not intuitive.
>
> Perhaps the best name for a package like this would simply be
> "gobject". That's both memorable *and* intuitive, not to mention being
> as straightforward as you can get. If possible, the ELPA maintainers
> recommend that you choose a name like this.
>
> However, suppose that at this point, I find myself disappointed: while
> "gobject" is a thoroughly practical name, I just don't want to give up
> the name "goblin". Instead, I could opt for a compromise: I'll still
> use "Goblin" when documenting the package and prefix names in my code
> with "goblin-", but I decide to submit it to GNU ELPA as
> "goblin-gobject". While this isn't as concise as "gobject", it does
> let the user know right away that this package has something to do
> with GObjects.
>

The example name you suggested, "gobject", is indeed a good name, but
there's a little problem that if someone ever comes up with a better
package, it won't find any name for itself.

-- 
Akib Azmain Turja, GPG key: 70018CE5819F17A3BBA666AFE74F0EFA922AE7F5
Fediverse: akib@hostux.social
Codeberg: akib
emailselfdefense.fsf.org | "Nothing can be secure without encryption."

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]