RE: Name of the standard library

[Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1080 bytes --]

>But on the topic of (guile ...) as name: I’m not sure whether (guile
...) is better. Because what then is (language ...)? What are (oop ...)
(sxml ...) and (web ...)?

>Should all of these move into (guile ...)? Or should we provide the
modules without prefix? What should then actually move into (guile ...)?

>I didn’t think of these before, because I didn’t start by looking at
existing code tree. Which was a mistake. These make it more dubious for
me whether a (guile ...) prefix is a good idea at all. Just aliasing
ice-9 would give the false impression that (web ...) and (language ...)
aren’t guile.

Why not move (language xyz) into (guile language xyz) as well?

I’m not sure about all the top-level module thingies though, sometimes other implementations implement the same thing too. For example, Racket has an SXML implementation. If the API is compatible (and located under the same module name) (I don’t know if this is the case), keeping it under (sxml ...) would make sense. (If not, (guile sxml ...)?)

Best regards,
Maxime Devos

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4852 bytes --]