<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi<div><br></div><div>packages and extensions are a pet-peeve of mine. :)</div><div><br></div><div>I feel strongly on the subject and I have followed the following conventions in my recent coding (conventions which hinge on a non-standard and unadvertised feature of many implementations: see below).</div><div><br></div><div>Most of my packages are now named as</div><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'">"IT.UNIMIB.DISCO.MA.XXX.YYY.ZZZ"</font></div><div><br></div><div><b>Then</b> they may have nicknames, which can be</div><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'">"COMMON-LISP.EXTENSIONS.DATA-AND-CONTROL-FLOW.STUFF"</font> and <font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'">"CL.EXT.DACF.STUFF"</font> and <font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'">"STUFF"</font>.</div><div><br></div><div>The naming scheme I adopted for the <font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'">"<a href="http://COMMON-LISP.EXTENSIONS.CH">COMMON-LISP.EXTENSIONS.CH</a>"</font> packages is that <font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'">CH</font> is the name of one of the ANSI chapters. Of course, one could imagine a <font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'">"COMMON-LISP.EXTENSIONS.NETWORKING"</font> package and a <font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'">"COMMON-LISP.EXTENSIONS.MULTIPROCESSING"</font> package for things which do not appear in the ANSI.</div><div><br></div><div>I feel this satisfies my inner need for order.</div><div><br></div><div>Two notes:</div><div><br></div><div><ol class="MailOutline"><li>The whole thing is predicated on an implementation raising an error (a <font class="Apple-style-span" face="'Courier New'">PACKAGE-ERROR</font>?) if two packages share nicknames; this is "mostly" the case.</li><li>The naming scheme is lengthy and - as it was pointed out in the past - kind of "polluting".</li></ol></div><div><br></div><div>I still do think it is worth exploring... Note also that I am <b>not</b> suggesting a file system mapping for packages.</div><div><br></div><div>Having said so, this may be worth a CDR by its own. Yet, maybe this is not the right venue for such discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div>--</div><div>Marco</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Apr 26, 2011, at 14:39 , Nikodemus Siivola wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 26 April 2011 14:31, Didier Verna <<a href="mailto:didier@lrde.epita.fr">didier@lrde.epita.fr</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"> Yeah. This is something one needs to do in several occasions already<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(for instance to get MOP functions from packages named differently<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">across implementations) and I don't think it's such a big deal.<br></blockquote><br>Unless you use CLOSER-MOP. :)<br><br>I think a semi-standard package for extensions like this would be<br>good, but that's probably just my idealism speaking.<br><br>Cheers,<br><br> -- Nikodemus<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>cdr-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:cdr-discuss@common-lisp.net">cdr-discuss@common-lisp.net</a><br>http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cdr-discuss<br><br><br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>--<br>Marco Antoniotti<br><br></div><br></div></body></html>