[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
registry of *features* names
- To: Masinter.pa@XEROX.COM
- Subject: registry of *features* names
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1987 19:40 EST
- Cc: cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Msg of 23 Oct 1987 17:01-EDT from Masinter.pa at Xerox.COM
- Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
At an earlier meeting, there was some discussion over registering the
list of "public" features and "system" packages so that different
implementations would not step over each other in their use of them.
(For example, Xerox uses XCL:, as did one of the X-in-Common-Lisp
modules. User code that explicitly referenced XCL:DRAW would have to be
Perhaps we could discuss this at our meeting?
Since I won't be able to get to the Colorado meeting, I'll throw in my
two cents' worth now.
A registry would have to be set up as a part of X3J13 or some other
"neutral" group in order to keep the registrar safe from big nasty
companies and their lawyers. I'm sure you've seen the kinds of hassles
that break out over trademarks and corporation names. We would have to
think carefully about what the rules should be for claiming a package
name. Otherwise some group will grab off all the good names and sell
them to the companies that have a real use for them.
In my view, companies and groups producing packages for widespread
distribution should be allowed to claim long package names that are not
likely to collide (e.g. XEROX-COMMON-LISP), but nobody should be allowed
to grab off short names like XCL. If you want to make XCL a local
nickname for Xerox Common Lisp, fine; I might want to use XCL as a
nickname for BERKELEY-X-IN-COMMON-LISP or for soemthing as yet undreamed