From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Clemens Radermacher Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal to change naming format to allow package-prefix/function-name Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:06:16 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87imlxjr46.fsf@alphapapa.net> <87h81gdco8.fsf@gnus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="32231"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen , Adam Porter Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 31 13:06:38 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1imGIG-0008F1-Ac for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:06:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41616 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1imGIE-0004RG-SC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 07:06:34 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41571) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1imGI7-0004Qx-R9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 07:06:29 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1imGI6-0007zF-IV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 07:06:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:33619) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1imGI6-0007nX-1X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 07:06:26 -0500 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB8992400FD for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:06:23 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1577793983; bh=1oyoDxlPryIZ1c8svaSKbHDQEoXDCl5nRfiJNVXv0Fk=; h=Subject:To:Cc:From:Date:From; b=kJI5MIHjQDaIO5soSSGL38j6tVWBuaQTMy+av9hMW1aKMrudZ0K9eIKL+7INviZTQ v3cS1ZLxahHQomvFxl3CFodtTGy9XB6/h8IS9LdUMP/FnwSolczp1ffNMsJiQytab4 1xeyomqj8z4WZeGY5YB9T3ZSXWE+NvbfHgrIjbFyoG1mwZBpX1nYs9+wcnETJBhFWS yFaQ1fqiOlabfxq5+9QGpNElXVoaNvOrcBp4jBgBSMsel0d4j2bPd96T0bLY/kkHm7 UBUfMX9ymG0JxRfKSIpn8Zr7Y8eSioHVJ6wUZaSX9cDsixw2gDXecZfx2P8Cc/5nf1 H/Blobtntlp9w== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 47nCgx3wXBz9rxW; Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:06:21 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87h81gdco8.fsf@gnus.org> Content-Language: en-US X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 185.67.36.66 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:243804 Archived-At: On 31.12.19 11:14, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: > Adam Porter 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