> But if it were, in a Lisp context colon (:) would make more sense IMHO,
as it is used in Common Lisp to separate the namespace ("package", in
CL-speak) from the symbol name.

Perhaps. My gut feeling is that package-prefix/function-name is more
readable than package-prefix:function-name, and also more obvious to new
users, but I think either would be better than the current dash separation.
I would think that any future implementation of namespaces would be able to
work with any character chosen here; it wouldn't be just a copy-and-paste
of CL code.

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 7:04 AM Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 8:03 AM Zachary Kanfer <zkanfer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Some Elisp functions that are part of Emacs already follow this format.
> > 1. Many eshell functions already follow this format, for example
> eshell/ls, eshell/exit, and eshell/define.
> > 2. Pcomplete functions use this format, even some for more than one
> hierarchical level, e.g. pcomplete/gzip,
> pcomplete/erc-mode/complete-command, pcomplete/org-mode/block-option/src.
> > 3. Org-plot has half a dozen functions, like org-plot/goto-nearest-table.
>
> I think this proposal is unlikely to gain traction. But if it were, in a
> Lisp context colon (:) would make more sense IMHO, as it is used in Common
> Lisp to separate the namespace ("package", in CL-speak) from the symbol
> name. That would make easier to adapt to CL-style namespaces, if they were
> implemented in Emacs some day (which I think won't ever happen, if previous
> discussions on the subject are to be believed).
>
>
>