Re: RFS: go

To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: RFS: go
From: Kartik Mistry <kartik.mistry@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:34:41 +0530
Message-id: <85c01b291003181004t56bec3d2oae622b2cad5a1e59@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <877hp9zl1w.fsf@bignachos.net>
References: <4BA20004.4080203@gmail.com> <201003181325.21192.dominique.dumont@hp.com> <4BA23274.9050107@gmail.com> <877hp9zl1w.fsf@bignachos.net>

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org> wrote:
>> Yes I can see the confusion. go-lang sounds good to me. But I would
>> like to have a little poll about which one is better, go-lang or
>> golang? Any other suggestions?
>
> '-lang' is commonly used in package names to refer to spoken languages
> (e.g. texlive-lang-*).  I actually prefer the "google-go" suggestion
> since I think that's the least ambiguous.

google-go sounds better.

-- 
 Cheers,
 Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_
 Debian GNU/Linux Developer | Identica: @kartikm
 Blogs: {ftbfs, kartikm}.wordpress.com

Reply to:

References:
- RFS: go
  - From: Ivan Wong <ivanwyc@gmail.com>
- Re: RFS: go
  - From: Dominique Dumont <dominique.dumont@hp.com>
- Re: RFS: go
  - From: Ivan Wong <ivanwyc@gmail.com>
- Re: RFS: go
  - From: Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org>

Prev by Date: RFS: libticables (updated package, fixes FTBFS on kFreeBSD and SH4)
Next by Date: Re: RFS: aaphoto
Previous by thread: Re: RFS: go
Next by thread: Re: RFS: go
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread