[MLton] library naming

[Matthew Fluet]

>> One potential problem in the new library project is the global
>> namespace of library names.  I've been hesitating a bit about putting
>> stuff in the new library project partially because of the problem of
>> thinking of a name for my library.
>
> I know what you mean.  I think that we should follow a process similar
> to the one described here:
>
>  http://boost.org/more/submission_process.htm
>
> Issues such as relations to existing libraries and naming are discussed
> during the submission process until a satisfactory solution is reached.
> An important side-effect of having the discussions is the building of
> confidence:  you know that there are others interested in the library you
> are submitting and that you have reached basic agreement on some issues.

[boost.org seems to be down right now.  I read a few choice pages through 
the Google cache, but I certainly haven't explored the project in any 
detail.]

Relative to what has been done in MLton in the past, the Boost process 
seems to:

  * require a relatively polished library before an author begins the
    submission process

  * deny CVS access to new authors until their library is reviewed and
    accepted

  * require a separate repository (Sandbox Vault) for work-in-progress

The first two points seem to set a barrier to entry for new authors. 
(Which is perhaps what they are designed to be.)  The third point seems to 
be an unnecessary level of indirection.  In particular, it seems to make 
tracking the revision of a work-in-progress somewhat harder.

>> In the interest of divvying up the global namespace, perhaps we should
>> adopt a Java-like convention, so that, for example, I would start by
>> creating the following:
>>
>>  mltonlib/com/sweeks/basic/unstable
>>
>> The hope is to allow others to maintain repositories with library
>> collections at other sites, and be able to merge multiple library
>> collections on some client machine without conflicts.
>
> Hmm...  I would hope that mltonlib would be more than just an ad hoc
> collection of various people's libraries.

I wonder if Stephen's suggestion wasn't an attempt at supporting 
work-in-progress libraries in the same repository as reviewed-and-accepted 
libraries.