[parenscript-devel] I like the deprecated names better

[Vladimir Sedach]

Fair enough. I've made js and js* undeprecated, and restored
js-to-string as ps-to-string (js-to-line is now gone permanently
though).

Vladimir

On 7/30/07, Daniel Gackle <danielgackle at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> parenscript-devel mailing list
> parenscript-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
>
>