From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Add some aliases for re-related functions Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 09:55:26 +0000 Message-ID: <20200503095526.GB5721@ACM> References: <7976B8C1-AFC7-4662-B750-6492EB70C0D5@gmail.com> <29721725-0696-4dcf-b5de-36924a5de259@default> <3777996c-7b3f-4d44-9636-f18aaff76a65@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="17956"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Yuan Fu , Stefan Monnier , Drew Adams , Emacs developers To: Philippe Vaucher Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun May 03 11:56:02 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jVBLt-0004Xx-Kj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 May 2020 11:56:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56286 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVBLs-0005sY-NZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 May 2020 05:56:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53674) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVBLP-00050P-En for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 May 2020 05:55:31 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:46362 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVBLN-0001qm-Vt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 May 2020 05:55:31 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 64212 invoked by uid 3782); 3 May 2020 09:55:27 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p2E5D57CC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [46.93.87.204]) by localhost.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 May 2020 11:55:26 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 5734 invoked by uid 1000); 3 May 2020 09:55:26 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/03 05:43:43 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = FreeBSD 9.x or newer [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:248669 Archived-At: Hello, Philippe. On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 10:05:40 +0200, Philippe Vaucher wrote: > > It wasn't intended to be taken literally. But > > the point behind it (there was one) was just > > that naming is hard. It's not easy to find a > > reasonable and consistent way to name things, > > including functions. (I think we agree about > > that, at least.) > Yes, naming is one of the hardest thing. Still when we see names that could > be improved and where most agree shouldn't we try? Most users don't agree. Most users haven't expressed an opinion. The flood of bikeshedding that's gone on has been mainly between a very few people echoing an apparent agreement between themselves. Most importantly, Eli hasn't expressed his approval, and he's the main person who keeps the show on the road. Neither has Richard (as far as I've seen), the originator of Emacs, and the person with the best overview of its history and development. > You make it sound like because naming is hard bad names are ok, .... If there are bad function names in Emacs, lets fix them one by one, each on its merits. > .... or that any new name will be barely better as naming is hard. If > I strawman your position we could name every new function as > function5318759 with an incremental number because hey naming is hard > we might as well give up :-) re-do-something-with-regexps is different from function5318769 in degree, but shares much of the essence. > I'm joking of course :-) Hmmm. > Philippe -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).