On 2016-10-11 03:16, Marcin Borkowski wrote: > On 2016-10-11, at 06:18, Clément Pit--Claudel wrote: > >> On 2016-10-11 00:06, Marcin Borkowski wrote: >>> BTW, someone (Raman?) on this thread said that namespaces save typing. >>> That's not exactly right; that goal is achieved with autocompletion (as >>> he already noticed). What namespaces really do is twofold: >>> >>> 1. Help avoid collisions, and >>> >>> 2. (last but not least!) save on reading. >>> >>> Long function names are really bad. >> >> I think nameless makes both of these a non-issue. You get "import x as y" using custom prefixes (such as fl: for font-lock), and for your own code there's no typing (C-- inserts the package prefix) and no wasted space. >> >> Bottom line: I don't see much use for proper namespaces :) > > That's only true to some extent. Both names and nameless packages (even > though I really appreciate them) are really prosthetics; I'd have to > check it, but how do they behave with tools like xref-find-definitions, > edebug, lispy and others? I'm pretty sure that names won't cooperate > with them nicely (I vaguely remember trying, though I'm not sure), I'd > have to check nameless. I never used names. Nameless works entirely fine with all of the tools you mentioned, because it only touches font-locking. Clément.