On 2016-10-11 10:54, Elias Mårtenson wrote: > On 11 October 2016 at 21:33, Clément Pit--Claudel > > wrote: > >> I never used names. Nameless works entirely fine with all of the >> tools you mentioned, because it only touches font-locking. > > All of these tools have the problem that it's difficult to tell what > part of a symbol is its "namespace". How do you tell the difference > between the symbols "foo-bar" without a namespace, or "bar" with > namespace "foo"? Indeed. Have you had this problem in practice, though? > Also, some Emacs Lisp packages have a dash in the name. How would an > automated tool know that the symbol gnu-apl-interactive-mode is > actually "interactive-mode" with the namespace "gnu-apl"? It's generally sufficient to look at the name of the file that declares that function. For example, gnu-apl-interactive-mode presumably lives in gnu-apl.el. If not, then you can set a file-local variable indicating what the library's prefix is. > I guess I'm just curious as to why a separate symbol isn't used? : > sounds good, and gnu-apl:interactive-mode would be much more clear. > Automated tools would also be able to make more sense out of symbol > names. nameless uses ':' for display (and '::' for private members), indeed. Some packages use / (yas/, for example) Cheers, Clément.