On 8/18/12, David A. Wheeler <dwhee...@dwheeler.com> wrote: > I have an idea for a command-line name change. > > I have hopes that the guile developers will someday include our ideas. I'm > advocating that Lisp implementations "foo" add commands "curly-foo", > "neoteric-foo", and "sweet-foo" so that people can easily "turn on" support > for their notations. Someday, perhaps, they'll all just turn on > sweet-expressions by default, but that will be a lengthy transition. > > But if the guile folks distribute "sweet-guile", that would interfere with > our own "sweet-guile". > > So I suggest we call our "guile" something else, perhaps "guilex". So you'd > invoke "sweet-guilex" to invoke *our* sweet-expression reader that runs on > top of guile. Then, when the guile folks release "sweet-guile", there's no > name conflict.
Isn't the goal that, if the guile folks release sweet-guile, it is essentially "the same", at least in spirit, to our own sweet-guile? If so, I think it would be better to use the same name. Sincerely, AmkG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
