Re: [PATCH] timer-list -> list-timers?

[jorge.alfaro-murillo@yale.edu (Jorge A. Alfaro-Murillo)]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

>> From: jorge.alfaro-murillo@yale.edu (Jorge A. Alfaro-Murillo) 
>> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:17:31 -0400  Ted Zlatanov writes:  
>> > That kind of bugs me about `M-x list-packages' etc. (there's 
>> > a  whole bunch of them, like `list-holidays' and so on). Is 
>> > there  any rule about when to make an exception to the 
>> > `<package>-function' naming convention?  If not, should there 
>> > be  one?  
>>  I agree. These functions that don't follow the package naming 
>> convention are always hard to find. 
> 
> Doesn't "M-x apropos" help?

Sure. But many times one does not know exactly what to look 
for. For example if I am getting familiar with a package I might 
want to see the name of all functions or variables in that 
package. For that I can use describe-function or describe-variable 
with <package>-TAB. Therefore, having at least aliases, as Tom 
suggested, would be useful. 

The `<package>-' naming convention also plays nicely with other 
things like `custom-unlispify-remove-prefixes', for example. And 
it is recommended in (info "(elisp) Coding Conventions").

So, I also have the same question as Ted: when is there a good 
reason to not follow the `<package>-' naming convention?

Best,
-- 
Jorge.