From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: transient Date: Sat, 02 May 2020 13:33:37 +0300 Message-ID: <83lfmatym6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87368npxw4.fsf@bernoul.li> <87v9ljo5d0.fsf@bernoul.li> <87ftcnxu5m.fsf@bernoul.li> <83y2qezlpd.fsf@gnu.org> <83tv12zjx1.fsf@gnu.org> <20200429101755.GF24737@tuxteam.de> <838sicw4do.fsf@gnu.org> <83zhaqu89z.fsf@gnu.org> <83sggiu2p9.fsf@gnu.org> <83r1w2u20y.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="117346"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: tomas@tuxteam.de, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Philippe Vaucher Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat May 02 12:38:50 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 1jUpXm-000URg-Rr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 02 May 2020 12:38:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59182 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUpXl-0003J4-Ud for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 02 May 2020 06:38:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52228) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUpTA-0008Sy-7q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 May 2020 06:34:04 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:54612) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jUpT9-0001tt-JF; Sat, 02 May 2020 06:34:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2566 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jUpSu-0000NJ-I2; Sat, 02 May 2020 06:33:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Philippe Vaucher on Sat, 2 May 2020 12:11:10 +0200) 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:248393 Archived-At: > From: Philippe Vaucher > Date: Sat, 2 May 2020 12:11:10 +0200 > Cc: tomas@tuxteam.de, Richard Stallman , Emacs developers > > And if it wasn't clear: "C-h f" is for looking up a function whose > name you already know. Which is AFAIU not the case in your original > use case. > > My original use case is: I want to copy an association list, I know the function will probably have "copy" in its > name and "alist", let's C-h f for "alist TAB" and fail because no results. Start again with "copy TAB" and filter > the lots of "copy-*" function until I find copy-alist. "C-u C-h a copy alist RET" finds that function as the single hit. As does "C-u C-h a alist copy RET". > Now imagine if this particual function was named "asscpy" > instead how frustrated I'd be :-) You will be frustrated because you use the wrong command. "C-h f" is not your friend unless you have a very good idea of the function's name. That's why "apropos" family of commands were invented: to help you find something you don't know by name. There's a best tool for each job, and "C-h f" is not a good tool for this job. But I already said that, several times. And since you still disagree, then I must insist that my response to Richard was spot-on: he asked why doesn't "C-h d" do the job, and my response was, in a nutshell, that what "C-h d" does is not relevant for you and other users who think and are accustomed to work like you do. You disagreed with my conclusion, but we now made one more full circle, and established that my conclusion was correct after all. > Also imagine how self-documenting and self-discoverable Emacs Lisp would > be if things where properly namespaced, like we ask for all packages to be on MELPA/ELPA and friends. I'm not objected to have aliases that would make it easier to find out the function's name using simple completion, but I think you greatly overestimate the usefulness of that in many practical situations. Meanwhile there are existing features designed specifically for these use cases, which do their job much more efficiently _today_, and you choose to disregard them or treat them as second-class citizens. I think it's a mistake, but I can only make suggestions and point out that those features do exist. > As said earlier, probably that my way of thinking is not common around here, but I'd not be surprised if it was > common for many developpers, maybe outside Emacs Lisp. My earnest advice for those developers is to try the features I mentioned, they might find them useful in situations similar to the one you described, and they might then decide to use them more than what they do today.