> > In Haskell, do you name every function with a
> > prefix that advertises the type of its return
> > value or one of its main arguments?
>
> [... replies pointing out that some Haskell
>  functions do prefix their names with type names...]
>
> I suggest those of you who think that Haskell
> too deserves type-name prefixes for all its
> function names start an initiative to rename
> its `map', `add', `zip', `head', ... functions.
>

https://hackage.haskell.org/package/containers-0.6.2.1/docs/doc-index-M.html

Map is always namespaced here (look at the right)? I expect other functions
to be too.

Anyway, you try to focus on the weak points of the arguments. I understand,
it's a natural defense mechanism. What I think is more relevant is to
notice how in Haskell there is a strong will to group things together.
That's what you'd take out of the example.

That said, yes, some generic functions will have troube finding a good
home. We already addressed this point several time but here it is once
more: those function could either be left untouched, or they could be moved
to `seq-`, or yet another solution...

But I suggest we don't talk about these corner cases for and and focus only
on concrete proposals: What we take from s.el and put under the string-
namespace, how we alias some of the regexp functions.

Philippe