Stefan Monnier writes:

>> I'm back with this issue.  Since I have "map" both as a verb and as a
>> name, and because I don't want to call "mapping" something else, I think
>> I'll go with renaming the library.
>
> BTW, to give some idea of the tradeoffs, could you remind us of the main
> concrete problems you face when using "map" as the library name
> (i.e. actual functions whose name is hard to choose)?

Sure.

`map-map-keys', `map-map-values' and `map-map' are the issue here.

Stefan, IIRC you suggested `map-keys-apply', `map-values-apply' and
`map-apply', and while it would work, I like the verb "map" much more
(it's also consistent with seq.el).

Cheers,
Nico
-- 
Nicolas Petton
http://nicolas-petton.fr