Perhaps this isn’t applicable in this case, but may I suggest a less-common alternative: no prefixing at all? If you put all the commands into a separate module, users of the module can use ‘prefix-in’ to choose whatever prefix they prefer.
This can be paired with documentation that uses a particular prefix in all its examples, encouraging a standard of sorts, but the choice of any prefix would still be available if a user prefers. For an example of this in the wild see Racket’s own parser-tools library (http://docs.racket-lang.org/parser-tools/Lexers.html). The common matchers are provided unprefixed in the parser-tools/lex-sre module, but the docs consistently use a ‘:’ prefix to create a standardized usage. This doesn’t eliminate the problem of needing to choose a prefix entirely, but it does give a little more flexibility to avoid the fear of choosing a prefix some users really don’t like. Alexis -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
