Re: [Groff] Toward a convention for namespaces

[Werner LEMBERG]

> [...] it means we really need only focus on namespaces for *support*
> packages.

Exactly.  Additionally, we should ensure that `main' macro packages
use a prefix (or a set of prefixes, if useful) for auxiliary stuff
consistently.

> Besides, retrofitting namespaces into primary packages may break
> documents that call low-level macros to fix a particular issue --
> we're not supposed to do it, but we do (and I'll admit, you'll find
> an occasional "address@hidden" in my documents).

Hmm.  This is a difficult topic.  Ideally, we shouldn't care about
this at all, preferring a clean implementation.  In other words, only
the documented macros should have unmodifiable names.  For backwards
compatibility we could retain the `original' macros under a different
package name (cf. -mdoc and -mdoc-old).

> That leaves us with the nature of the namespaces themselves.  [...]

I don't have any preference.  It would be a good start to simply
document the prefixes of the main and auxiliary macro packages which
are floating around, additionally looking for (and documenting)
irregularities.

Any takers?

BTW, a `prefix' in the above sense can be a special character too,
located somewhere inbetween:

  foo*bar
  foo:bar
  foo!bar
  address@hidden

Again, it would be great if someone documents that.


    Werner