[parenscript-devel] I like the deprecated names better

[Daniel Gackle]

I agree with renaming Parenscript's package from :js to :parenscript or :ps.
Indeed, just :parenscript would be fine. A library and its package should
usually have the same name. However, some of the function and macro names
that Parenscript now complains are deprecated, I actually prefer to their
replacements.

For example, the js macro is accurately named. I prefer this:

   (js (setf x 1))

to this:

  (ps (setf x 1))

...because "js" reminds me that I'm generating Javascript (not Parenscript).
To me it's closer to the meaning. What I especially don't like, though, is
this:

  (script (setf x 1))

... because there are at least two other scripting languages embedded in my
Lisp code, and the term "script" could apply to any of them. I need to know
at all times which kind of script I'm working with. In this case it's
Javascript.

Similarly, I much prefer "defjsmacro" to "defscriptmacro". Much clearer and
more expressive.

There's sort of a philosophical point here. I don't see Parenscript as a
separate language. I see it as an interface to Javascript. I don't want an
extra mental layer getting in the way, and I certainly don't want to forget
that I'm writing Javascript. (I love using macros to build up abstractions
in Parenscript - in fact that's a big reason I use PS - but to me that's a
separate issue.)

Bottom line, I have a moderate preference for "js" names instead of "ps"
ones and a strong objection to the generic term "script". What do others
think?

Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/parenscript-devel/attachments/20070730/1f208410/attachment.html>