Re: CL package suggestion

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

cl-clean sounds a bit like a development stage in a project (alpha, beta, clean...) -- might be confusing as a permanent

package name?  other than that, sounds good.

other possibilities:

cl2

cl-new

cl-compat

cl-ext

cl-exts

cl-extensions

btw, the name prefix will stay as cl- , as in cl-remove-if, whatever the 'require symbol, correct?

also, should the names be changed everywhere in the CL package manual, or just add a separate section

saying that the following names should really be prefixed?

also: should i also add cl- aliases for macro names in CL, for uniformity?  eg proclaim is a function while declaim

is a macro, but should the user have to keep that in mind or just use cl-proclaim and cl-declaim and have it work?

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:

> Maybe cl-runtime, or cl-rt?

I'd rather not insist on the "runtime" side.  It will just be the new
canonical name of "cl".  We can't use "cl" because too many package
presume an implementation of "cl" which is not namespace clean, whereas
the new "cl" will be namespace-clean.

Maybe 'cl-clean' ?


       Stefan

> We need a (require 'cl-<something>) which brings up CL but only within
>> the "cl-" namespace.  I don't have a good idea for naming.  `cl-defs'
>> might be OK, but I'm open to other suggestions.  Maybe `cl-layer', or
>> `cl-emu', or `cl-compat'?
>> `cl-funs' is another option, indeed.
>>