Hi, Sorry for taking so long to chime in.
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 22:32:22 +0100 Pierre Neidhardt <m...@ambrevar.xyz> wrote: > [...] > > That would not be consistent with the Lisp library naming scheme then. > And it raises the question as to why we have bothered with the sbcl- > and ecl- prefixes so far. > > Andy, any opinion on this? > That information is there to make sure that the transformer which converts sbcl packages to source and ecl packages works properly. If it's not being used, then there's no need to follow it. Even when it is being used, it's always possible to manually override the name of the final package - the convention is only there to make package name transformation automatic. So if it's more desirable in a given situation to use a non-conforming name, there's nothing that will prevent you from doing so. Hoping that helps, -- Andy
