From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Subject: Re: Next browser finally on master!
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 22:45:00 +0100
Message-ID: <87y38lry1v.fsf@elephly.net>
References: <87in085kk2.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87woo5y6yq.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87woo5mjzt.fsf@posteo.net> <877eg5jq3s.fsf@ambrevar.xyz>
	<8736qttg3h.fsf@elephly.net> <87tvj9mf12.fsf@posteo.net>
	<87zht1i4nt.fsf@ambrevar.xyz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52272)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1gZjeZ-0006v4-ST
	for help-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:45:21 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1gZjeU-0002bc-Rd
	for help-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:45:19 -0500
Received: from sender-of-o53.zoho.com ([135.84.80.218]:21766)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1gZjeU-0002ac-Fj
	for help-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:45:14 -0500
In-reply-to: <87zht1i4nt.fsf@ambrevar.xyz>
List-Id: <help-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/help-guix>,
	<mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/>
List-Post: <mailto:help-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-guix>,
	<mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Help-Guix" <help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: help-guix <help-guix@gnu.org>


Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> writes:

> - As far as I understand, the compiler *does* change the resulting
> binary, thus the resulting REPL experience will be different, because
> all Lisps are different beyond the ANSI standard and other undefined
> behaviour.  In other words, connecting via SLIME to ccl-next or
> sbcl-next would result in a different environment.

Sure.  I wouldn=E2=80=99t expect people who use ECL to be able to load libr=
aries
that were built with SBCL.

>> That these packages can *also* be used as libraries does not mean that t=
he
>> packages should have names with the =E2=80=9Csbcl-=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9C=
cl-=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cother-lisp-=E2=80=9D prefix.
>
> That would not be consistent with the Lisp library naming scheme then.
> And it raises the question as to why we have bothered with the sbcl- and
> ecl- prefixes so far.

The naming scheme applies to packages that are primarily used as
libraries.  A package =E2=80=9Cfoo=E2=80=9D that is written in Python and a=
lso provides
modules that can be imported in an interactive Python session will not
be named =E2=80=9Cpython-foo=E2=80=9D when it is primarily used on its own.

--
Ricardo