On Sat, May 13, 2023, 10:06 Susam Pal <susam.pal@gmail.com> wrote:

> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> wrote:
> >
> > Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > On 5/10/2023 11:33 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > >> Please reconsider, I think this name is very unfortunate, because it
> > >> gives users no clue whatsoever about the package's purpose.
> > >
> > > How about something like "devil-keys"? That should make it clear that
> > > the package has something to do with keys. It doesn't tell exactly
> > > what it *does* with those keys, but I think a more-detailed
> > > description belongs in the package description or the manual.
> > >
> > > Within the package itself, I think it would be fine to refer to it as
> > > "Devil" (without the "-keys"), since once you're looking at the
> > > package in detail, the "keys" hint isn't needed anymore.
> >
> > I think this is a nice idea, and a good compromise.
>
> I worry that choosing "devil-keys" as the package identifier is going
> to make the identifier inconsistent with how Devil is packaged in
> MELPA. The instructions to install Devil are going to become more
> complicated than they need to be with differing instructions for MELPA
> and NonGNU ELPA.
>
> I am not convinced that a meaningful name is necessary for this
> package. Consider the popular package meow. It is a fairly recent
> package that was created in 2020 and added in December 2022. It exists
> with the name "meow" in NonGNU ELPA. People who do not know about it
> of course do not know about it. But people who do know about it do not
> get confused about what it does. I doubt anyone is going to stumble
> upon these packages merely due to a meaningful name. At minimum, one
> is going to run M-x package-list-packages RET and search the buffer
> for strings like "modal", "key", etc. But more typically, people
> encounter these packages via recommendations from other community
> members. People learn about packages like this in some context where
> the context makes it clear what these packages do.
>
> In general, I do not think packages with quirky names or names
> unrelated to the purpose of the package is a problem. On the other
> hand, I feel, the more the merrier! At the same time, I do acknowledge
> that opinions on this matter differ.
>
> Devil is a package created as a result of a whimsical idea and I think
> the whimsical name is befitting. In my humble opinion, an additional
> suffix like "-keys" does not really add much. One still has to read
> the package description to understand what it does. However adding
> this suffix does take away something. It takes away simplicity,
> elegance, and consistency. It introduces inconsistency between the
> package identifier and the package name. It introduces inconsistency
> between NonGNU ELPA and MELPA.
>
> I believe that using "devil" as both the package identifier and name,
> combined with the updated package description mentioning its purpose
> as a key sequence translation package does provide sufficient clarity
> for anyone browsing the package list.
>
> I would like to thank everyone who has generously invested their time
> and contributed to this discussion. Despite differing opinions, I
> wanted to take a moment to express my thoughts on the matter.
>

FWIW i agree with you on all points.

It's important for packages to be allowed to keep the names the developers
baptized them with.

João

>