Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org> writes:

> 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.

One could argue this would help preventing NIH and encouraging people to
contribute to existing projects.