RE: library/package filename prefixes

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

>   > > Are there any libraries in Emacs or GNU ELPA
>   > > which currently use a 2-letter prefix?
> 
> lisp/emacs-lisp/pp.el does use a two-letter prefix.
> Perhaps we should change it.
> 
> lisp/emacs-lisp/gv.el uses a two-letter prefix.
> I expect that the functions named starting 'gv-' are
> not used from a lot of user code, so it should not be
> hard to rename them.
> 
> Does anyone oppose renaming them?
> 
> lisp/bs.el does use 'bs-' as a nane prefix...
> Should we rename that?
> 
> It would be easy to rename po.el and its one entry point,
> which is called in just one place.

FWIW, I proposed a minimum of 2 chars (plus hyphen).
I think that's good.  What's a good reason for going
to 3 instead of 2?

And yes, I expect that there's a fair amount of code
out there that uses prefixes `pp-' and `gv-'.  (But
that's not the reason I think a 2-char minimum is OK.)

If ever all possible 2-char prefixes get used, people
will of course be obliged to use at least 3 for new
libraries.  I don't see that as a problem.

0 or 1 char (plus hyphen) is problematic, I think.
But I don't see that problem for 2.
___


See also my somewhat related suggestion, about
distinguishing library prefixes from other prefixes:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2020-05/msg00261.html