Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages (was: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil)

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

I think your guideline text is good.  It's quite clear, and readable
too.

But I'm confusd by this subsequent comment:

  > However, I also think it's important to show how you can 
  > come up with a good compromise if you're a package author who just can't 
  > let go of your fun package name. In my mind, showing in the 
  > documentation how to compromise on this would go a long way towards 
  > making package authors not feel like they're being micromanaged.

The last paragraph of your draft text, about goblin-functions,

  > Instead, I finally 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-functions". While this 
  > isn't as descriptive as "gobject", it does at least provide a hint to 
  > the reader that this is a collection of functions (intended for other 
  > Lisp authors, as opposed to end users).

seems to do that -- so why is a change needed?

I think goblin-gobjects might be a superior compromise.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)