Lassi Kortela <la...@lassi.io> writes: >> It would be easy to state in more places "the standard library of guile >> is called ice-9 (see [history])". > > With no disrespect intended -- I understand it's a joke that was funny > at one time -- "the standard library of Guile is called ice-9" sounds > like "the unit of mass is called footballs". If so, why would a smart > newbie learn more?
I did. Did you not? (I know that this is a paradoxical question; I’m pointing to it, because *we actually do not know*, so maybe we should refrain from discussing the hypothetical smart newbie when all of us who are here would by definition not match that description) I actually liked that name — and still like it. Keep in mind that being professional quality doesn’t require being teflon-proof naming. Python includes `import this` and `import antigravity`. Because exposing ones humanity isn’t a problem. But on the topic of (guile ...) as name: I’m not sure whether (guile ...) is better. Because what then is (language ...)? What are (oop ...) (sxml ...) and (web ...)? Should all of these move into (guile ...)? Or should we provide the modules without prefix? What should then actually move into (guile ...)? I didn’t think of these before, because I didn’t start by looking at existing code tree. Which was a mistake. These make it more dubious for me whether a (guile ...) prefix is a good idea at all. Just aliasing ice-9 would give the false impression that (web ...) and (language ...) aren’t guile. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. draketo.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
