At 3:12 AM +0100 15/12/30, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
On 30/12/15 02:25, Pascal Costanza wrote:
[...]
Basing package names on domain names provides the illusion that you
have unique names, but domain names come and go, companies change
owners, repositories move to different hosting servers, etc., etc.,
so they are not as stable as one might think. If people use
sufficiently long package names that can then be renamed locally
using package-local nicknames, that's sufficient, IMHO.
Oh, you're right. Now I see the light. I will therefore rename my
com.informatimago.* package into 2915BB3ECC3D45029DBF41BD48508E2E.*
And let's not talk about the 3 or 4 different CLON packages we have...
It might be useful to have the option to nickname away any package
names which come over as unwelcome advertising or otherwise
inappropriate. In effect renaming symbols' print form so their
package name matches their purpose from our own pov.
Any standard might include an ASDF or meta declaration form which
states package names used by any systems, such that others who
use/integrate those systems know what package naming conflicts they
face, and can side step them conveniently at top level. It can be
tricky to handle some package name overlaps.
In our glorious far lisp future, there'll be many thousands of
interleaved systems with a multitude of package names, hence a race
to be first to bag the choice ones (as in domain name squatters,
sales, extortionists, self publicists, etc). Some mechanism for
disappearing unwanted package names but leaving functional state
identical, might be a necessity. Then we can all have our own sys and
si roots.
