New package: PAndQ v0.1.0

[JuliaRegistrator]

• Registering package: PAndQ
• Repository: https://github.com/jakobjpeters/PAndQ.jl
• Created by: @jakobjpeters
• Version: v0.1.0
• Commit: b0ea900353940b03e6d9b446d4f64d57a873059f
• Reviewed by: @jakobjpeters
• Reference: Registrator.jl jakobjpeters/PAndQ.jl#3 (comment)
• Description: A symbolic implementation of propositional logic

[github-actions]

Your new package pull request does not meet the guidelines for auto-merging. Please make sure that you have read the General registry README and the AutoMerge guidelines. The following guidelines were not met:

• Package name similar to 1 existing package.
  1. Similar to PANDA. Damerau-Levenshtein distance 1 between lowercased names is at or below cutoff of 1.

Note that the guidelines are only required for the pull request to be merged automatically. However, it is strongly recommended to follow them, since otherwise the pull request needs to be manually reviewed and merged by a human.

After you have fixed the AutoMerge issues, simple retrigger Registrator, which will automatically update this pull request. You do not need to change the version number in your Project.toml file (unless of course the AutoMerge issue is that you skipped a version number, in which case you should change the version number).

If you do not want to fix the AutoMerge issues, please post a comment explaining why you would like this pull request to be manually merged. Then, send a message to the #pkg-registration channel in the Julia Slack to ask for help. Include a link to this pull request.

Since you are registering a new package, please make sure that you have also read the package naming guidelines: https://julialang.github.io/Pkg.jl/dev/creating-packages/#Package-naming-guidelines-1

---

If you want to prevent this pull request from being auto-merged, simply leave a comment. If you want to post a comment without blocking auto-merging, you must include the text [noblock] in your comment. You can edit blocking comments, adding [noblock] to them in order to unblock auto-merging.

[jakobjpeters]

This package was originally named PAQ. The auto-merge failed due to the name being too short and being similar with 13 existing packages. @goerz recommended that I change it to PAndQ.

Regarding the name similarity with PANDA, this package name differs both by the final character and from the capitalization of nd. They would be unlikely to be confused for each other or accidentally typed incorrectly. PANDA is likely to be read as a single word, whereas PAndQ is likely to be read as P And Q.

Thank you for reviewing.

[noblock]

[stemann]

Isn't this name, PAndQ, (also) in conflict with point 1 of Package naming guidelines: Jargon.

Something with PropositionalLogic sounds more like what the package contains... why wasn't this name chosen (it's free)?

[noblock]

[jakobjpeters]

I chose the name because I liked it and thought it was cute. I chose not to use something like PropositionalLogic because I am uncertain of the future scope of the package. If the name is unacceptable, I will workshop a less systematic name.

Thanks for your feedback.

[noblock]

[goerz]

For what it’s worth, I think the name is totally fine. “Cute” names (“less systematic names”, as the guidelines call them) are usually good choices if you can come up with one, and I would encourage them especially in a situation like this where the scope of the package is in flux. I would recommend sticking to your choice.

[stemann]

OK - I agree with @goerz that coming up with a "less systematic name" is (too) hard.

Not sure I quite understand the scope/aim of the package - and hence it is a bit hard to understand the need for registering it - but I won't block this any further.

[noblock]