Project/library name

[Necr0x0Der]

metta-morph sounds nice, and I don't argue for changing its name, but we may need to just fix the decision.

• As for metta- prefix: import metta-something in MeTTa looks redundant. However, it's ok to have it for the repo or even package name. E.g., pytorch is a package name, while it is imported as torch. MeTTa package installation is not ready, so it is more a question about the repo name. metta- sounds suitable for it.

• As for morph, it is not too discriminative and descriptive. It says nothing about Scheme or compilation. However, it may become a library for transforming metta programs (in a meta-programming style), who knows. Thus, it is not completely out of place.

In total, metta-morph is OK, but if it was considered as a preliminary working name and there are any ideas for renaming, then it is timely to consider them or decide to stay with the current name.

[patham9]

I agree, and initially I picked the name since overall it "morphs" the MeTTa code to become Scheme then C then binary, which has some loose analogy with Metamorphosis in biology.

[ntoxeg]

Just FYI, Pytorch’s package name is torch these days. “PyTorch” is only the official project name at this point. Some other libraries also have adopted such transition, like pytorch-lightning -> lightning. Under that convention your package would just be named morph. Whether that’s ambiguous or not depends on how standalone the project is supposed to be, otherwise maybe it’s better to clarify that it’s some MeTTa-related toolkit.