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

why have any restrictions?

The proposal is interesting. I would take it to be a useful convention for readability and a useful way to avoid clashes.

But some of the restrictions need unnecessary.

Who cares if there at dots in names? web:plt.org:extensions seems ok.

Why does :: need to be special? If a library foo:bar is registered, then foo:bar:more is just as expression and clash free as foo:bar::more.

What is wrong with saying things like srfi-73x?

If URLs are allowed, why restrict to only http:. Why shouldn't ftp: be allowed, or jar: to extract contents from an archive. Why not file: for local libs, or for during development?

I am finding that Java's notion of reversing the order of domain names in package names allows on to express namespaces "logical" scopes more naturally. Consider:




Myself I would have a very very simple rule: use Java's package naming convention and be done with it. Your domain name gives the uniqueness. Use a *single* separator by convention, either . or : or / or -, but just stick with it. Note also that this does not prevent the use certain prefixes with domain names since they are useful in their own right, e.g. srfi-N, r6rs, etc. (Although I would prefer scheme:r6rs instead). But when in doubt about uniqueness a domain prefx can be used.