On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 4:50 PM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Peter Bex scripsit: > > > > As for library names, I favor fully spelled out names instead of > > > abbreviations, i.e. chicken.fixnum, chicken.flonum, etc. > > > > Noted. I don't care much which way it goes, so if nobody argues > > strongly for the abbreviations, we'll use the fully spelled out forms. > > I like the full names better. What I don't like, and don't understand > the reason for, is the dots. Why does the R7RS egg map (scheme base) > into scheme.base instead of scheme-base? Specifically because scheme.base doesn't conflict with the existing eggs. Using the hyphen bidirectionally > makes the existing eggs visible to R7RS in a very nice way: > > Chicken R7RS > sdl (sdl) > sdl-base (sdl base) > x11-colors (x11 colors) > 9p (9p) > http-client (http client) > parley (parley) > awful (awful) > awful-path-matchers (awful path matchers) > You're inventing namespaces here that didn't exist before. These names were all created using a flat namespace, so one would expect them to map to (sdl-base), etc. In these examples it may work to assume "-" indicates nesting, but that fails for many other examples, such as F-operator define-record-and-printer static-modules strictly-pretty sql-de-lite etc. srfi-19 (srfi 19) > srfi-25 (srfi 25) > SRFI's are special anyway, but if we wanted we could provide both names for them. The other concern was the ambiguity of using the most common intra-namespace separator as the namespace separator. If you have the likely module names (html-parser) and (html parser), they would map to the same Chicken name using your proposal. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
