Rename module to "soundfile"

[mgeier]

I always found the module name pysoundfile a bit clumsy to type and to speak about.
Also, import pysoundfile as sf didn't feel right, because sf isn't really an abbreviation of pysoundfile, it should rather be psf, but that's not nice, either.

I couldn't come up with a better suggestion, until I thought about possible package names for Debian (see #100). I think python-soundfile and python3-soundfile would be reasonable names for packages.

Which led me to the question: Why don't we just call the module soundfile?

This would be simpler, nicer to type and read, and the abbreviation sf would suddenly make sense:

import soundfile as sf

Also, soundfile.SoundFile looks more consistent to me than pysoundfile.SoundFile.

The project name on Github (the "marketing" name) should still be "PySoundFile", but inside Python code, the "py" isn't really necessary.

Of course, the same change could/should be made to PySoundCard, then the canonical header for a Python script would become:

import soundfile as sf
import soundcard as sc

... and code would look something like this:

data, fs = sf.read("myfile.wav")
sc.default.samplerate = fs
sc.play(data)

I had a quick look at PyPI and in the web, and I didn't find any real conflicts.
I know, I could've come up with this idea before 0.6.0, where we changed a lot of the API, but sadly, I just didn't.

Any opinions?

[bastibe]

I see your point, and largely agree that soundfile is a better name than pysoundfile. I think we should postpone this to a later point, though. Maybe 1.0?

There have been enough breaking changes for a bit. 0.6 would have been a great time for it.

[mgeier]

If you also think it's a better name, we should change it rather sooner than later.
We could make a new release 0.7.0 in a few days, hoping (but not guaranteeing) that we don't have any more major breaking changes from there.

The longer we wait, the more annoying the breakage will be.
I don't think it serves anyone if we wait until 1.0.
Also I hope that the number of users will be orders of magnitude larger when we release 1.0, so it will annoy many more people than it will if we release the breaking change in the next few days.

[bastibe]

On the other hand, we might just call it 1.0 anyway. I think that what with the documentation being done, and the test suite, and all the improvements we did in the last year, this is truly worthy of going out of beta (actually, it's technically still marked alpha).

[mgeier]

I added a commit that renames the module (f80c60e).

I think the exact time we should go for version 1.0 is largely a matter of taste.
We can do it now, we can also wait a bit; I'm OK with it either way.

[bastibe]

is pip install case sensitive?

[mgeier]

I'm quite sure it's not.
I just changed it to PySoundFile because that's the "official" spelling and that's what is shown on the PyPI page.
But I can change it back to lowercase, if you prefer.

[mgeier]

I rebased the commit (6c6ab4d).

[bastibe]

Let's talk about this in person to decide this issue. I'm still torn about it.

[mgeier]

I changed the pip commands to lowercase, now it's ready to merge!