Re: Brand new clojure support in Emacs ;-)

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ 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. ]]]

  > As to naming, it's not my call, so let's have Richard chime in.
  > clojure-mode, newclojure-mode, etc, I personally don't care, since I'm
  > not a Clojure user.

It is an Emacs convention that the major mode for a language FOO
is named FOO-mode.  Users expect they can tyoe M-x FOO-mode RET to
select that mode.  They expect to be able to put -*-FOO-*- on the first
line to specify that mode in the file.  We should follow that convention.

Lynn wrote:

  > I don't think using the term "hijacking" is productive.  The GNU emacs
  > developers could well say that using a standard functional name like
  > "clojure-mode" with no intent to contribute it to the core was the
  > "hijacking", or perhaps namespace-squatting.  It would be different for
  > "cider" or another non-standard, nonfunctional name.

You've got it right.  The name "cider" does not fit into an Emacs
standard naming convention; it is simply a name someone chose for a
package.  If we want to develop a similar packge that could be part of
Emacs, we would have no reason to use that name.  So we may as well
pick another nmms for the new package.

I'm ok with making small adaptations to cooperate with the developers
of the external Clojure language mode, when that does not cause a
problem for Emacs.  There is no reason to be ornery.  But we should
not do that in ways that mess up our general conventions.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)