Matthieu MOY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Quoting Robert Widhopf-Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Just wondering, will it be an issue that all our files are > > xtla* but all the funs/vars/... are tla-*. > > The prefix used to be xtla-*, but > > 1) This is longer to type > > 2) Most users just won't care about the name of the package. They just want to > call tla through Emacs. > > This is the approach followed by PCL-CVS, and I think it is good. The package > name is PCL-CVS, but as a user, you don't even have to know it: type M-x > cvs-whatever RET does what you want. > > However, the file names are prefixed by "pcvs".
I also think it is no problem, if we keep the file named xtla-* and the functions named tla-* > We are in the special case of a package which is a wrapper around an external > tool. I think it's good to differenciate the tool and the wrapper, and avoid > calling the package "tla". (By the way, Stefan, where does the 'x' come from?) It is just XSteve's tla interface for emacs. This is another analogy to pcl-cvs (the pc stands for Per Cederqvist). I am not sure, what the l means. XSteve is the nickname that my little sister gave me many years ago. Now everyone calls me Stefan again. But I use xsteve as loginname for my free software activities. > > Someone might come up with tla*.el and then we get naming > > conflicts as they are naming all their stuff tla-*. > > There used to be several tla wrappers for Emacs. We now try to have only one, > but yes, name clash is possible. > > I think the best way to avoid this is to make xtla visible enough, so that > people learn about its existance before hacking anything else about tla. I just tried a google search for "emacs tla". The first two results pointed to xtla.el. So I think xtla.el is already very easy to find. -- Stefan.
