rename Basic to Luan

I will rename the Basic module to Luan.

done in rev 320

I think this was a mistake.  I don't really like "luan:Luan" now after using it for a while.  And now that I am making big changes anyway, I can change it.  I could change it back to "Basic" or to "Core" or "Lang".  What do you think?

I think "luan:Luan" is not the issue. It is the usage that matters. For example:

for i in Luan.range(1, 10) do
    ...
end
__________________________________

for i in Basic.range(1, 10) do
    ...
end
__________________________________

for i in Core.range(1, 10) do
    ...
end
__________________________________

for i in Lang.range(1, 10) do
    ...
end

I think Luan.range() makes more sense and it is the easiest to remember, so I prefer it. All other cases look very strange to me. Of course we could do:

local Luan = require "luan:Core"

but this is kind of cheating. What do you think?

The right way to do it is:

local Luan = require "luan:Luan"
local range = Luan.range

for i in range(1, 10) do
    -- ...
end

So then the question becomes:

local Luan = require "luan:Luan"
local range = Luan.range
-----------------------------------
local Basic = require "luan:Basic"
local range = Basic.range
-----------------------------------
local Core = require "luan:Core"
local range = Core.range
-----------------------------------
local Lang = require "luan:Lang"
local range = Lang.range

I don't agree. I prefer less lines of code, so I just use Luan.range(1, 10) directly because (1) it will always help me remember where that function is defined and (2) will make the code more compact than yours.

In any case, I don't have issues with "luan:Luan" or "Luan.range", so I wouldn't change it. If you really feel strong about this, then you may rename it to "Core".

We agreed on "Core", but one last issue.  The jar itself is also called "core" and the path is luan/core .  So I would rename the jar to "standard" and the path to luan/standard.  So the standard modules would include Core, Io, Table, etc.  Okay?

Okay, but do we really need a name for that jar? I would call it luan-X.X.jar. Other jars should have a name, like luan-web-X.X.jar, but maybe you should leave the stantand one clean.

Hugo <Nabble> wrote

Okay, but do we really need a name for that jar? I would call it luan-X.X.jar. Other jars should have a name, like luan-web-X.X.jar, but maybe you should leave the stantand one clean.

Just look at nabble/ext .  It never works as you are suggesting.  Either all jars have sub-names or there is just one jar.  And I think this makes sense.

In the /ext of the resume project I see:

poi-3.9-20121203.jar
poi-ooxml-3.9-20121203.jar
poi-ooxml-schemas-3.9-20121203.jar
poi-scratchpad-3.9-20121203.jar

That's an Apache project. But in any case, you can use luan-standard-X.X.jar.

I have another option instead of "Luan" and "Core", simply "G".  This is based on the idea that Lua use _G for these functions.  And since it will be common, I think it is good for it to be short.  We can think of "G" as standing for "general" instead of "global".  So the choices are:

for i in Luan.range(1, 10) do
    -- ...
end
-----------------------------------
for i in Core.range(1, 10) do
    -- ...
end
-----------------------------------
for i in G.range(1, 10) do
    -- ...
end

I prefer "G".

We discussed this. "G" is not intuitive and looks cryptic to me. I think "Core" is short and simple enough, so I prefer it.

I tried Core and l decided that I don't like how it looks.  So I will stick with Luan.  You can close this.

Okay, closing thread.