GNU bug report logs - #15284
wish: make the (name) field optional

Previous Next

Full log

Message #8 received at 15284 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab <at> web.de>
Cc: 15284 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15284: wish: make the (name) field optional
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 14:06:49 +0200

Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab <at> web.de> skribis:

> Currently when defining a package, I have to write the name at least
> twice:
>
> (define-public NAME
>   (name "NAME"))
>
> This gives the flexibility to use different names for the visual
> output and the technical name. But for most packages it likely just
> adds useless duplication.
>
> So I think the (name) field should be optional, and if it is not
> present, the packages technical name should be used automatically.

As discussed on IRC, the main issue is that package objects exist
whether or not the exist a variable bound to them; and really there can
be any number of variables whose value is a given package object.  IOW,
there is no direct connection between the variable name and the package
name.

That said, for cases like the above, we could have:

  (define-syntax-rule (define-package package-name fields ...)
    (define-public package-name
      (package
        (name (symbol->string 'package-name))
        fields ...)))

However, I prefer treating packages just like any other Scheme object,
and to avoid introducing “magic” with macros like this.

WDYT?

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.