Re: Proposal to change naming format to allow package-prefix/function-name

[Clemens Radermacher <clemens.radermacher@posteo.de>]

On 31.12.19 11:14, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> Adam Porter <adam@alphapapa.net> writes:
> 
>> Whatever the character used, as long as it's visually distinctive and
>> easy to type, I think it would be helpful to both users and developers
>> to allow it to be used to separate the package/feature name from the
>> rest of the symbol name.
> 
> I don't.  In Common Lisp, it's a functional thing, and it's easy to
> remember that foo:bar-zot is a thing, but in Emacs Lisp, where it would
> just be a character that's not sounded when you read the symbol, it's
> just confounding.  In the past, when working on Emacs Lisp code bases
> where somebody has been creative with non-letter characters, I always
> find myself having to try all the variations to find the correct symbol,
> because what my brain remembers is "foo bar zot", and not whatever is in
> between those letters.
> 
> foo:bar-zot?  foo-bar:zot?  foo:bar/zot?
> 

Maybe using a char suffix would be better so it would better align with current conventions 
and make it easier to search/complete for users which expect those:

    package-name-/function-name
    package-name--/private-fun-name