References: <47059BC7-DC72-4886-805C-89AE29585052@gmx.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
            Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Message-ID:  <8f392764-c20e-f589-d034-0a0484da265c@latex-project.org>
Date:         Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:09:10 +0200
Reply-To:     Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender:       Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From:         Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG>
Subject: Re: Package Registrations
To:           LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <47059BC7-DC72-4886-805C-89AE29585052@gmx.at>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Status: R

Am 07.09.18 um 16:36 schrieb Benedikt Vitecek:
> 
> I would like to register two package prefixes, but as there was a 
> discussion about prefixes in June (I think)
> I also wanted to ask if the prefixes are „okay“ (or if they are too 
> general). Both packages are already
> at CTAN for some years now, but changing the prefixes – if necessary – 
> wouldn’t be a problem. Back then
> I have chosen the prefixes simply to be equal to the package names.

Hi Benedikt,

update to my earlier statement.

Maybe cooking_units should be reconsidered and replaced perhaps by 
"cookingunits" without the underscore. Point is, conceptually the module 
name is really just everything up to the first underscore there is not 
concepts of only supporting  sub-modules yet.

Of course we could invent the notion of modules that can only be used 
with a submodule part but I'm not sure that this is really a good idea. 
So perhaps better is to simply drip the underscore and call it cookingunits


regards
frank