[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Package naming

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: Package naming
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2020 01:20:33 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0

On 07.06.2020 00:56, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
beside the matter-of-fact reply of Stefan, I haven't seen anyone else
express opinion on this matter. I believe that with easy code
distribution via ELPA (and MELPA) it would be best to have some
consistency in package naming, thus an (unofficial, not strictly
enforced) naming convention would be a good thing.

Does anyone else feel like commenting on this?

I generally lean toward naming the packages 'foo', not 'foo-mode'. But there are exceptions.

E.g. if the mode is called <language>-mode, looks like almost everybody in MELPA up to now has chosen to name the package the same, apparently in order not to confuse the name of the package with the language? There are plenty of exceptions for this in core Emacs, though (python.el, pascal.el, prolog.el, etc). So you really can go either way.

All packages with minor modes, on the other hand, can safely go with the <foo> name, because it's probably sufficiently unique.

I'd call the org-mode package 'org', by the way.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]