bug#24386: 24.5; `read--expression' --> `read-expression', please

bug#24386: 24.5; `read--expression' --> `read-expression', please

[Drew Adams]

Please consider renaming `read--expression' to `read-expression' and
taking away its "internal" designation.  What it does is equally useful
to ordinary Emacs user-programmers.


In GNU Emacs 24.5.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
 of 2015-04-11 on LEG570
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --prefix=/c/usr --host=i686-pc-mingw32'

bug#24386: 24.5; `read--expression' --> `read-expression', please

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> Please consider renaming `read--expression' to `read-expression' and
> taking away its "internal" designation.  What it does is equally useful
> to ordinary Emacs user-programmers.

It does seem like a rather internal function (setting up eldoc stuff and
the like), so I think it's probably well-named as is; closing.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#24386: 24.5; `read--expression' --> `read-expression', please

[Drew Adams]

> > Please consider renaming `read--expression' to `read-expression' and
> > taking away its "internal" designation.  What it does is equally
> > useful to ordinary Emacs user-programmers.
> 
> It does seem like a rather internal function (setting up eldoc stuff
> and the like), so I think it's probably well-named as is; closing.

There's _absolutely nothing_ internal about the
behavior this function offers.  You can use it
_any_ place where you want to read a sexp.

In fact, users should be _encouraged_ to use
this, as opposed to more primitive, less
sexp-oriented ways of reading text when what
they want is a Lisp sexp.

That's akin to telling users to use file-name
manipulation functions instead of just concat,
when dealing with file names.

The name should probably be changed to have
"Lisp" in it, however, as it reads only Lisp
sexps (currently).

And this function needs a doc string (badly).

As for it using `eldoc-mode': That presumably
makes the function more useful for specifically
Lisp-sexp reading.  If we think otherwise then
that could be removed or optional.  In any case,
its presence has _nothing_ whatsoever to do
with whether the function is useful generally
or should be considered internal or local to
only some uses.

This is a bad judgment call, IMHO.

bug#24386: 24.5; `read--expression' --> `read-expression', please

[Michael Heerdegen]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> > > Please consider renaming `read--expression' to `read-expression' and
> > > taking away its "internal" designation.  What it does is equally
> > > useful to ordinary Emacs user-programmers.
> >
> > It does seem like a rather internal function (setting up eldoc stuff
> > and the like), so I think it's probably well-named as is; closing.
>
> There's _absolutely nothing_ internal about the
> behavior this function offers.  You can use it
> _any_ place where you want to read a sexp.

IMO we should offer an official way to read expression input.  That
would likely look very much like read--expression.

> As for it using `eldoc-mode': That presumably makes the function more
> useful for specifically Lisp-sexp reading.  If we think otherwise then
> that could be removed or optional.

FWIW it wasn't there from the beginning - it was added while fixing
Bug#27202.  If we speak of Lisp, the name "expression" implies something
to be intended for evaluation, so having eldoc support is totally
legitimate.

Why not also add a `read-sexp'?

Michael.

bug#24386: 24.5; `read--expression' --> `read-expression', please

[Drew Adams]

> > > > Please consider renaming `read--expression' to `read-expression'
> and
> > > > taking away its "internal" designation.  What it does is equally
> > > > useful to ordinary Emacs user-programmers.
> > >
> > > It does seem like a rather internal function (setting up eldoc
> stuff
> > > and the like), so I think it's probably well-named as is; closing.
> >
> > There's _absolutely nothing_ internal about the
> > behavior this function offers.  You can use it
> > _any_ place where you want to read a sexp.
> 
> IMO we should offer an official way to read expression input.  That
> would likely look very much like read--expression.
> 
> > As for it using `eldoc-mode': That presumably makes the function more
> > useful for specifically Lisp-sexp reading.  If we think otherwise
> > then that could be removed or optional.
> 
> FWIW it wasn't there from the beginning - it was added while fixing
> Bug#27202.  If we speak of Lisp, the name "expression" implies
> something to be intended for evaluation, so having eldoc support
> is totally legitimate.
> 
> Why not also add a `read-sexp'?

+1 to all you said.

`read--expression' is a good beginning for such
a function.  If we don't do as you suggest then it
would also be a good end: just remove the extra `-'.

(But I don't think the name "expression" implies
something to be intended for evaluation.  It often
means that, but it's also used just for "sexp".)