From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Add some aliases for re-related functions Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 11:33:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <872ab4f0-4ee4-401d-aa38-1658b8c19567@default> 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=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="119797"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Yuan Fu , Stefan Monnier , Emacs developers To: Philippe Vaucher Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon May 04 20:35:35 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 1jVfwF-000V3Q-4J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 20:35:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52040 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVfwE-0002pP-6P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 14:35:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38534) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVfuB-0008Nm-Ke for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 14:33:30 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:35068) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVfu9-0007Io-GR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 May 2020 14:33:27 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 044IJDMt001356; Mon, 4 May 2020 18:33:22 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=yK/TXf7pJbOtuB/oMaVxW/NfbSl/wuTrqT/LD+LeVBg=; b=lTr+bFT7hXXFk0DmPJhNYj1iqWscQDqDCh9pj65qQzjG/YO/s5qhxTfGYCxlwyTNezF2 x1buxARujZs2JKGIwtxcovURIfFGRKbW5/yafnLYiUQ8iqqgMhbR5hYVTCiP23OFqszu loXXaY2cPKGdmGDKhfIpTKeblNgCcmf9nQkP2KmNQRjN+jyb4B0LyYoCWhsheBWaaguE MXcTqdAw29TzaAVMqFDMmGF2CVVHj0YZd3+1DcWvS/dtNSsRwSctIA8cTCToMRcY6QyS wwoHDZU5ClYuQ4+zHIlgWvrwIUFe5O0tjiJfbzZnySs314Z7SKkSCouU2qmtPWgK8FZZ hA== Original-Received: from aserp3020.oracle.com (aserp3020.oracle.com [141.146.126.70]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 30s0tm8mht-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 04 May 2020 18:33:21 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 044IHLYe167606; Mon, 4 May 2020 18:33:21 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 30sjnbg2bw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 04 May 2020 18:33:21 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0001.oracle.com (abhmp0001.oracle.com [141.146.116.7]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 044IXHPK008045; Mon, 4 May 2020 18:33:19 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4993.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9610 signatures=668687 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2005040144 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9610 signatures=668687 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2005040144 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=141.146.126.78; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=aserp2120.oracle.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/04 12:52:00 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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:248896 Archived-At: > > I may have disagreed with this or that. > > Just one opinion. Agreement and disagreement, > > with accompanying arguments, are normal. >=20 > I probably over reacted a bit, sorry. It's fine. I think most of us have been there. ;-) As someone else said, don't get discouraged. > But at this point you'd now that I'd be fine with things not being > perfectly categorized. >=20 > What I'm complaining about is the lack of categories for a lot of > functions, or categories that don't look consistent. For example, if > everything string-regexp was under the "text-" prefix, I'd already be > pretty happy compared to the current situation. Right now it's a bit > here, a bit there, all spread around. >=20 > Also as I said earlier if at least there was a standard, like > "verb-object" I could understand, but the lack of consistency between > "sometimes prefix, sometimes not, sometimes idiosyncracy" makes > everything very unpredictable. Maybe I'd just embrace the chaos and > the uncertainty but, I think having a reasonable amount of arbitrary > prefixes would not be such a crime :-) >=20 > Do you see my point? I see your point. We are all lumpers and splitters to one degree or another, and differently in different contexts and at different times. And we can tolerate inconsistency to different degrees. Wrt categorizing/naming, as Stefan put it: it's both hard and impossible. Still, we try...