Re: CL package suggestion

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1457 bytes --]

cl-clean sounds a bit like a development stage in a project (alpha, beta,
clean...) -- might be confusing as a permanent
package name?  other than that, sounds good.

other possibilities:
cl2
cl-new
cl-compat
cl-ext
cl-exts
cl-extensions

btw, the name prefix will stay as cl- , as in cl-remove-if, whatever the
'require symbol, correct?

also, should the names be changed everywhere in the CL package manual, or
just add a separate section
saying that the following names should really be prefixed?

also: should i also add cl- aliases for macro names in CL, for uniformity?
 eg proclaim is a function while declaim
is a macro, but should the user have to keep that in mind or just use
cl-proclaim and cl-declaim and have it work?

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>wrote:

> > Maybe cl-runtime, or cl-rt?
>
> I'd rather not insist on the "runtime" side.  It will just be the new
> canonical name of "cl".  We can't use "cl" because too many package
> presume an implementation of "cl" which is not namespace clean, whereas
> the new "cl" will be namespace-clean.
>
> Maybe 'cl-clean' ?
>
>
>        Stefan
>
>
> > We need a (require 'cl-<something>) which brings up CL but only within
> >> the "cl-" namespace.  I don't have a good idea for naming.  `cl-defs'
> >> might be OK, but I'm open to other suggestions.  Maybe `cl-layer', or
> >> `cl-emu', or `cl-compat'?
> >> `cl-funs' is another option, indeed.
> >>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2215 bytes --]