Re: CL package suggestion

[Ilya Shlyakhter <ilya_shl@alum.mit.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1683 bytes --]

Of the names mentioned so far, cl-lib seems best to me: what distinguishes
cl from most other packages is that it's a library of callable code rather
than
an implementation of some user-facing functionality.
cl-ext would also work for the same reason.

If the intention is to eventually obsolete and forget about the non-safe,
non-clean and non-nice version of cl, then cl-safe/cl-clean/cl-nice might
look strange in future code (suggesting that there's a
non-safe/non-clean/non-nice
version somewhere & the user is choosing the safe/clean/nice version for
their particular program).  Cf. car-safe, floatp-safe etc.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

>    No: The way to do it is to rename cl.el to cl-<something>.el, change all
>    its definitions to use the "cl-" prefix and then create a new cl.el
>    which only contains defaliases.
>
> Yes, that would be the right way.
>
> My suggestions for names for the new package are cl-safe, cl-imp (for
> implementation), or cl-nice (because it is nice to the namespace).
>
>    > also: should i also add cl- aliases for macro names in CL, for
> uniformity?
>
>    That's a good question and I haven't thought much about it.  I'm leaning
>    towards the "yes" (e.g. I don't like the current dolist/dotimes
>    situation where those macros are defined in two different ways
>    depending on whether `cl' is loaded or not).
>
> I agree.
>
> --
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin St
> Boston MA 02110
> USA
> www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
> Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
>  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2382 bytes --]