Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages

[Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com>]

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.