Re: Name of the standard library

[Lassi Kortela]

> > If so, why would a smart newbie learn more?

> I did.
>
> Did you not?

As a committed schemer, I forgive almost any obstacle.

> I actually liked that name — and still like it. Keep in mind that being
> professional quality doesn’t require being teflon-proof naming. Python
> includes `import this` and `import antigravity`. Because exposing ones
> humanity isn’t a problem.

Those are Easter eggs, not the default way to do everyday things.

> But on the topic of (guile ...) as name: I’m not sure whether (guile
> ...) is better. Because what then is (language ...)? What are (oop ...)
> (sxml ...) and (web ...)?
>
> Should all of these move into (guile ...)?

IMHO they should move under (guile ...). Other Scheme implementations 
(e.g. Gauche) have the same problem: implementation-specific libraries 
are in the top-level namespace. This make it hard to figure out which 
libraries are portable, standardized, or third-party, and which ship 
with a particular Scheme implementation. I often write portable code, 
and in that context this is a clear issue.