Hello, all,
I want to publish perl-to-lisp bridge module to CPAN.
It connects existing LISP implementation to Perl, which turns out to be
robust LISP out from perl (as opposed to toy implementations).
Lisp:: namespace is already used by some modules, and I contacted all
authors personally, who were very helpful, fortunately.
In private mail Gisle Aas provided me with very good advices.
I, however, want to discuss the issue even in larger auditorium,
Gisle Aas wrote:
I suggest you go with Lisp::Bridge::*
on the second thought, this will sum in creation of Bridge.dll file
out from XS, which is not good, because different bridges will have
DLLs with same name.
(although these names will not contradict each other in normal setup)
Perhaps even better would have been Bridge::Tcl, Bridge::Lisp,
Bridge::Python, etc.
may be its the chance to do reorganizing of Tcl.pm (with
backwards-incompatible changes)?
Tcl.pm has some odd-named functions back from the era, when better
naming practices were not invented.
:)
I will think a bit more between these alternatives:
Bridge::Lisp (probably the best)
CLisp (short name is good, I like it most)
Lisp (even shorter name, but could be problems with already existing
modules on CPAN)
I seem to like top level names, as they make small programs smaller. I
even use some module F.pm (my own tiny file) to use from one-liners
All in all, I would be grateful for more advices on the subject.
Best regards,
Vadim.
PS. LISP has more flexible package naming semantics, so this question is
easier from the other way round :)
