From septagon at mweb.co.za Wed Apr 2 10:39:20 2008 From: septagon at mweb.co.za (Michael Ben-Yosef) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:39:20 +0200 Subject: [lispy-devel] Packages versus systems Message-ID: <47F36258.7020505@mweb.co.za> Hi, Thanks for Lispy. It looks to be a very nice project and I can't wait to give it a whirl. I've been waiting for someone to put something like this together and I'm glad not have to make my own ill-conceived attempt at it. I would like to make a recommendation with regard to the terminology that is being used. I strongly suggest calling it a "system manager" for Common Lisp instead of a "package manager". As you know, the word "package" already has a very specific meaning in the CL language. The fact that a package in CL is more of a namespace for symbols than a self-contained module of code already confuses newcomers to the language to no end, giving rise to attempts to allay the confusion, such as this one: http://weitz.de/packages.html Using the word "package" in two different senses would make things a lot worse, especially since "system" is already the accepted CL term for what is meant here. ASDF is after all, Another *System* Definition Facility. Kind regards, Michael From mkennedy at common-lisp.net Wed Apr 2 17:51:57 2008 From: mkennedy at common-lisp.net (Matthew Kennedy) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:51:57 -0500 Subject: [lispy-devel] Packages versus systems In-Reply-To: <47F36258.7020505@mweb.co.za> References: <47F36258.7020505@mweb.co.za> Message-ID: <9c1134b50804021051x34af600dq58f9f4b9f413d121@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Michael Ben-Yosef wrote: > > I would like to make a recommendation with regard to the terminology that > is being used. I strongly suggest calling it a "system manager" for Common > Lisp instead of a "package manager". As you know, the word "package" already > has a very specific meaning in the CL language. The fact that a package in I agree that the package terminology I've used is unfortunate and should be changed. How about if we refer to Lispy dowloading **libraries** and managing **systems**? So the changes on the project page would look like this: Common Lisp **system** management in Common Lisp... Lispy is a **system** manager for Common Lisp, written in Common Lisp... 1. Implement an easy to use, portable **system** manager... 2. Provide a wealth of ready to install **libraries**... new releases and also new **libraries** available in the maps... Lispy uses distributed software maps to locate Common Lisp **libraries**... You may have your own **libraries** or other **libraries** not... All Common Lisp **libraries** mapped... These **library** archives are modified... The **library** archive lacks a version number... The **library** needs to be patched In Lispy's source and also the map files themselves, I've used "module" where I really mean "library". I think I will change module to library for the next release and update all the maps in a backwards compatible manner. Matt From septagon at mweb.co.za Wed Apr 2 20:16:03 2008 From: septagon at mweb.co.za (Michael Ben-Yosef) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:16:03 +0200 Subject: [lispy-devel] Packages versus systems Message-ID: <47F3E983.2060803@mweb.co.za> Here is a message I sent to Matt Kennedy and forgot to CC to the list: > Matthew Kennedy wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Michael Ben-Yosef wrote: >> >>> I would like to make a recommendation with regard to the terminology that >>> is being used. I strongly suggest calling it a "system manager" for Common >>> Lisp instead of a "package manager". As you know, the word "package" already >>> has a very specific meaning in the CL language. The fact that a package in >> >> I agree that the package terminology I've used is unfortunate and >> should be changed. How about if we refer to Lispy dowloading >> **libraries** and managing **systems**? >> >> So the changes on the project page would look like this: >> >> Common Lisp **system** management in Common Lisp... >> Lispy is a **system** manager for Common Lisp, written in Common Lisp... >> 1. Implement an easy to use, portable **system** manager... >> 2. Provide a wealth of ready to install **libraries**... >> new releases and also new **libraries** available in the maps... >> Lispy uses distributed software maps to locate Common Lisp **libraries**... >> You may have your own **libraries** or other **libraries** not... >> All Common Lisp **libraries** mapped... >> These **library** archives are modified... >> The **library** archive lacks a version number... >> The **library** needs to be patched > > Sounds excellent. It makes perfect sense since a given library may include multiple system definitions. From this point of view it could perhaps also be called a "library manager". I guess in my haste to dissuade from the use of the word "package" I suggested an alternative which isn't quite right, i.e. maybe just putting "library" everywhere is better. > >> In Lispy's source and also the map files themselves, I've used >> "module" where I really mean "library". I think I will change module >> to library for the next release and update all the maps in a backwards >> compatible manner. > > Yes, it's a shame that the word "module" is already taken by the standard and used for a now deprecated feature. One could still use hooks or persuade the developers of a given implementation to make REQUIRE and PROVIDE work with Lispy libraries. Then Lispy libraries and modules would be the same thing again for that implementation. > >> Matt > > Once again, thank you for adding a bit of excitement to the Lisp landscape. > > Michael From mkennedy at common-lisp.net Thu Apr 3 17:01:23 2008 From: mkennedy at common-lisp.net (Matthew Kennedy) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:01:23 -0500 Subject: [lispy-devel] Packages versus systems In-Reply-To: <47F3E983.2060803@mweb.co.za> References: <47F3E983.2060803@mweb.co.za> Message-ID: <9c1134b50804031001v17d1a994u64da30d2f1305490@mail.gmail.com> The project pages refer to libraries instead of packages now. Matt