Re: Naming guidelines for ELPA packages

[Philip Kaludercic]

Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com> writes:

> On 5/13/2023 3:30 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
>> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
>> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>>    > How about something like "devil-keys"? That should make it
>> clear that
>>    > the package has something to do with keys. It doesn't tell exactly what
>>    > it *does* with those keys, but I think a more-detailed description
>>    > belongs in the package description or the manual.
>> I like this way of serving both goals at once: a clue about what the
>> job is,
>> and a name to distinguish this package from others for thatjob.
>> 
>
> Maybe we could turn this into a general guideline, and document it
> somewhere on GNU ELPA (maybe the README). Something like the below? It
> could probably use some editorial work, but I thought an example
> "story" of choosing a package name might help explain things to
> readers.

I've suggested something like this in the past, but I can't find my
message.  Either way, I think this is a good idea that could help avoid
a lot of bikeshedding.

> ----------------------------------------
>
> Naming is hard. To assist package authors, here are some guidelines
> for choosing good Emacs package names. Package names should be:
>
>   * Memorable: Aim for short, distinct names that users can easily recall.
>   * Intuitive: Names don't need to fully describe a package, but they
>     should at least provide a hint about what the package does.
>
> For example, suppose I've written a package that provides an interface
> between GObjects and Emacs Lisp, and named it "goeli". This isn't a
> very good name, since it's not easy to remember (users may find
> themselves asking, "Wait... was it 'goli' or 'goeli'?"), and it's
> nearly impossible to guess what it does from the name.
>
> After thinking about it some more, I have a flash of insight: I'll
> call it "goblin" (for _GOb_ject _L_isp _In_terface)! This is easy
> enough to remember, but it's still not intuitive.
>
> Perhaps the best name for a package like this would simply be
> "gobject". That's both memorable *and* intuitive.
>
> However, after thinking about it yet again, I find myself
> disappointed: while "gobject" is a thoroughly practical name, it's
> just not very fun. Instead, I finally opt for a compromise: I'll still
> use "Goblin" when documenting the package and prefix names in my code
> with "goblin-", but I decide to submit it to GNU ELPA as
> "goblin-functions". While this isn't as descriptive as "gobject", it
> does at least provide a hint to the reader that this is a collection
> of functions (intended for other Lisp authors, as opposed to end
> users).


I agree with everything up until the last paragraph, but am not
convinced that encouraging a "fun name" should be part of the
guidelines.