p.s. cl-compat is taken (though obsolete), so that's not an option. On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Ilya Shlyakhter wrote: > 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 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-) 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. >> >> >> > >