RE: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > If all string manipulations are to have prefix `string-'
> 
> No we will never put *all* string manipulation under the "string-"
> prefix, simply because there's no way to precisely define what is "all
> string manipulation".

Good.  You did speak of a time when "people got
used to expect all string manipulations to appear
there."  They'll expect them all to be there, but
they won't all be there.  Then we can have another
round of this topic, responding to queries about
those that don't appear there... ;-)
 
> We know that we can't classify everything correctly.

You're right about that.  Starting with no agreement
about what "correctly" is for any given case, and
continuing through there not being any single
"correctly" for many cases.

To be clear and more serious: In general I'm in favor
of the most relevant terms appearing in function etc.
names.

Usually that's already the case, but there are no
doubt lots of poorly named functions.

Sometimes there's an order that's more natural or
expected - word order similar to what's spoken, for
example.  And sometimes (often) the order really
doesn't matter - _especially_ for discovery.

But sometimes, sure, there's no reason not to use
a more standardized order.  Whether and when that
standardization should privilege the type of objects
involved or the action involved is another question.

I do expect that the proposed initiative (no, it's
not formulated yet, but the impetus is there) will
likely be a waste of time and doesn't represent a
big problem to be solved.  And I suspect the cure
might be as bad, in the end, as the problem it
tries to solve, or at best, it'll be a wash.

To me it makes more sense for specific problematic
names to be reported - as bugs or enhancement
requests.  Patch this or that real hole in the
bikeshed roof, rather than repaint it.  Even that
(fixing this or that problematic name) has proved
difficult to get done in the past.