Re: Testing dangerous change in tomorrow's snapshot (was: Re: Guile segv)

[Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>]

> I agree on everything except the naming. What you call (guile-user)
> should be called (guile), and what you call (interaction) should be
> called (guile-user). It is a long-standing Lisp tradition that the
> user (or foo-user) module is where the user _is_ by default, not what
> the user _gets_ by default. In fact, my proposal would be perfectly
> analogous to common lisp, which has package "CL" which exports all the
> system bindings (possibly importing them from elsewhere and
> re-exporting them), and package "CL-USER" which is the package where
> the user gets dumped initially, and which starts with no bindings of
> it's own, but importing everything from "CL". I think this is a good
> naming convention to follow, i.e. that user is where the user is, not
> what the user gets.

Okay.  I don't know CL, and I didn't realize there was such strong
precedent.  Let's go with your suggestion.

Okay, Mikael?