Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Hi Pierre, > >>> I am also in favor >>> of renaming SBCL-Next to something else. I know that we are using sbcl >>> instead of clisp for building it, but the naming scheme seems to imply >>> an SBCL library or module rather than a web browser application. >> >> This is being discussed for stumpwm in bug #33311. […] > > I’ve read that discussion, but I don’t see how it is relevant. > The *name* of the package surely does not have any effect on the > features, does it? > > For applications like StumpWM and Next we could change the package names > to “stumpwm” and “next”, respectively. That these packages can *also* > be used as libraries does not mean that the packages should have names > with the “sbcl-” or “cl-” or “other-lisp-” prefix. > > Am I misunderstanding something? That was my understanding as well Ricardo. I do not see how renaming the package would detach it from its respective compiler. It should still be just as hackable in SLIME... Or so I thought? Brett
