I don't think that the package and library namespace should be mixed.
+1. However....
Nor are library names like "(github.com/account/repo foo qux)" very nice, quite the
contrary.
If we have generic library name rewriting, we can have our cake and eat
it too.
So (github.com/account/repo foo qux) is just a library name. _Unless_ we
have added a rewrite rule that says to translate any library name part
with slashes into a git repo URL. So this:
(import (from-package "git://[email protected]:accout/repo.git" (foo qux))
Could be derived from (github.com/account/repo foo qux) using a rewrite
rule, something like this:
(rewrite-import
(github.com/<acctname>/<reponame> <libname> ...)
(from-package
(string-append "git://[email protected]:" <acctname> "/" <reponame> ".git")
<libname> ...))
And there should be no need to find a single library.
If the library can list its own dependencies, it would make perfect
sense to find only one. The package manager can chase the dependencies
for the user.
Adding one more indirection makes sense here. Of course, there could be
a default mapping that will produce your suggested mapping.
Are you thinking of something like the rewrite rule above?
