Re: Renaming eglot -- or at least add an alias?

[Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>]

Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:

> Now that we're getting closer to merging eglot, I think it is our last
> chance to (re-)consider that "eglot" is not the ideal name.  It has some
> charm, of course, but it is quite non-descriptive and it's hard (read:
> impossible) to understand what it does based on the name alone.[1]

FWIW,

The word "bikeshedding" often gets thrown around when someone tries to
find ways of making Emacs easier to use.  I don't think that is the best
approach.  Ease of use often comes down to minor details, in themselves
not a big deal, but that taken together will start to add up.

I also think the claim that naming doesn't matter is wrong.  Naming of
user facing features *does* matter, especially of important features
such as this one.  We have enough technical debt, quirks and historical
baggage in Emacs as it is.

Several people have argued the renaming case effectively, and I haven't
seen any need to add much beyond that.  But it's clear to me now that we
haven't been able to find a significantly better name.  Given that there
is also a lot of opposition to renaming, I think I agree that, on
balance, it might be better to leave this alone.

Long live Eglot.  I'm happy to see it merged.