[Python-mode] Major mode name change?

[Barry Warsaw]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Dec 8, 2008, at 6:15 PM, Gerard Brunick wrote:

> Would it possibly be a good idea to change the name of the python  
> editing mode in python-mode so that it does not conflict with the  
> FSF python editing mode name?  In particular, it seems that "py- 
> python-mode" or "py-mode" might be good alternative names that are  
> consistent with the "py-" naming scheme that is used for just about  
> everything else in python-mode.el
>
> As I see it, such a change would have the following advantages:
>
> 1. Both versions of the python editing mode could peacefully coexist.
> 2. Many people prefer python-mode.el, but sage-mode is built on top  
> of python.el, so the Sage folks are left out in the cold.  (Or more  
> accurately, must make an irreversible decision to use either python- 
> mode or python.el for each emacs session.)
> 3. It would be more clear to folks what major mode there buffer was  
> in which might cut down on the confusing.
> 4. If you have elisp which needs the "python-mode" function name, it  
> is easy to create an alias to the new name, so that things don't  
> break.
>
> I suspect that there are people who have put a great deal of work  
> into python-mode.el and might be frustrated that GNU Emacs people  
> choose to conflict with their work.  In particular, these people  
> might be hesitant to concede the "good name."  It is not my goal to  
> antagonize you if you are such a person; however, it seems that this  
> would make things much more convenient for people who work with GNU  
> Emacs.

I appreciate the suggestion, but IMHO, we were here first.  By a very  
very long shot.  I would not support such a change in python-mode.el,  
sorry.

Much more productive I think would be a concerted effort to merge the  
two modules.  There's been talk, but unfortunately not too much code,  
which I can sympathize with because I don't have any time to work on  
such a merge either. ;)

I would certainly help facilitate such a merge by providing guidance  
though.  I'm sure Skip and probably Ken would and could do the same  
too.  I think there aren't any remaining licensing obstacles to such a  
merge (well there never really was anyway).

- -Barry

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)

iQCVAwUBST2v3nEjvBPtnXfVAQK/BwQAi5udT/02+oFpAGctiY0TVdfjFa55ezuP
HYR/XPJymTI6BVd+SrE6l5/TjUayB6Tya3cxnHI35KrudRgTBfHIDfaFiit8dZSs
7ZpRPgUvyqx9CIxLeJF5zkre+MgujzDj7/sdmh/QBFDaIRF2o8YUmqt/VW5Kyfna
wTXP2bYqXO0=
=iiKS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----