Re: Name of the standard library

["Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" <arne_bab@web.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1671 bytes --]

Lassi Kortela <lassi@lassi.io> writes:

>> It would be easy to state in more places "the standard library of guile
>> is called ice-9 (see [history])".
>
> With no disrespect intended -- I understand it's a joke that was funny
> at one time -- "the standard library of Guile is called ice-9" sounds
> like "the unit of mass is called footballs". If so, why would a smart
> newbie learn more?

I did.

Did you not?

(I know that this is a paradoxical question; I’m pointing to it, because
*we actually do not know*, so maybe we should refrain from discussing
the hypothetical smart newbie when all of us who are here would by
definition not match that description)

I actually liked that name — and still like it. Keep in mind that being
professional quality doesn’t require being teflon-proof naming. Python
includes `import this` and `import antigravity`. Because exposing ones
humanity isn’t a problem.


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.


Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1125 bytes --]