From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 15:29:40 -0400 Message-ID: References: <0c88192c-3c33-46ed-95cb-b4c6928016e3@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="32734"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Richard Stallman , Emacs developers , =?utf-8?B?7KGw7ISx67mI?= , Dmitry Gutov , Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams To: =?windows-1252?B?Sm/jbyBU4XZvcmE=?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue May 05 21:30:34 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jW3H0-0008Qy-51 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 05 May 2020 21:30:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60166 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jW3Gz-0008Rd-57 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 05 May 2020 15:30:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35086) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jW3GF-0007wt-9Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 May 2020 15:29:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:50118) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jW3GD-0003Q4-OJ; Tue, 05 May 2020 15:29:46 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E3DED814A1; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:29:43 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1D52381246; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:29:42 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1588706982; bh=Rtf3h5urRvwJ6NAJelgbb/LVUO14Gjf2oJ7tJR1tPmo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=d56o0WJbSBO1aP/5IZw5qEex+JrkkC6qBvGJJSaVnVZZvNOIAyj/URCjDzNebDKjx /2LgerSYuvEIC9RioZKKvtZBZK2IVMuIHE4uqCDiGNfFhAd72qpciURVXeIAEjG8aU N1+9SzzVc9o6WqJJt8Bb+DjtUWmloIA8gNEh0jX14YnG0FzITLNkJ692nDLin1Ocjw UjUQmuxHQajVVwP1oguUuAovq23O2jAkYMbgc7Fe9Ui+jP526fOe0ub1fraguklkwc C3BCYyQoaNM8AlnzMrVyuFYXcLojbHSQokPNX+T5QmcZ+93lj4CYwWN1/SbeECqQ28 FuSTjVpBiJyPg== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.3.202]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9719A12060B; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:29:41 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (=?windows-1252?Q?=22Jo=E3o_T=E1vora=22's?= message of "Tue, 5 May 2020 19:56:10 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/05 13:23:34 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:249026 Archived-At: > Heh, a quarter-serious dose of consistency for a fuzzily defined "core" > Sure that's worth it? Wouldn't you rather work on namespaces? I expect that adding lexical scoping to Elisp was significantly easier than adding namespaces will/would be. And I'm not nearly as often frustrated by the lack of namespaces as I was by the lack of lexical scoping (or as I am by the lack of namespacing). So my estimation of the ratio gain/pain is not looking good (note that the "pain" factor there refers to the pain of the designer/implementor rather than the pain inflected on the rest of Emacs coders). But maybe someone else has an idea for how to add namespacing much more easily than what I expect. > The two issues intersect! But it could be in a destructive rather than constructive way: having a separate "ELISP" package would reduce the impetus to impose a good naming structure within this package, which is what this thread is all about. >> There can be good reasons to have exceptions, exemptions, etc... but >> they should be understood as that. From this point of view, I think >> it's hard to justify an exception for `multibyte-string-p` > Other than: it's there already: it's ingrained in code and programmers > minds. I see exactly 1 occurrence of `multibyte-string-p` in GNU ELPA, so I expect that the majority of Elisp programmers have never used that function in their code. There are some renamings I'd like to see happen which would definitely go against the "ingrained" habits (including mine), but I don't think `multibyte-string-p` is affected by this aspect. > Jo=E3o "who instantly regrets mentioning the manual cause I just say > unibyte-string there, too" Yup: `multybyte-string-p` is not even mentioned in the manual. Stefan