From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?B?7KGw7ISx67mI?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Namespaces - summary, conclusion Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 19:22:29 +0900 Message-ID: <678D0113-16D5-4937-B509-C0BBABD60E0C@icloud.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="28166"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Stefan Kangas , Emacs developers , Stefan Monnier , =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= , Richard Stallman , tomas@tuxteam.de, Eli Zaretskii To: Philippe Vaucher Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue May 05 12:26:40 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 1jVume-0007EL-8q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 05 May 2020 12:26:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59494 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVumd-0007zx-5K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 05 May 2020 06:26:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60132) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVuik-0001qu-TC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 May 2020 06:22:38 -0400 Original-Received: from pv50p00im-zteg10021401.me.com ([17.58.6.47]:35038) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jVuij-0001yD-ST for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 May 2020 06:22:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=icloud.com; s=1a1hai; t=1588674156; bh=i4fJYynfwJrK7fJr4Xa9jhjC/mOS2bmSrxk8IPMMS4o=; h=Content-Type:Subject:From:Date:Message-Id:To; b=0Ta9EYPeYdAxF/Jo30zjItgS27e1ErtdQr7a5W+v3vmTaVwTJ4gK/OiI/PJkViHV7 texK4TQ4lKs0oOjT1fQx9favGw2vYvWVXl6ceHnw4HpJc/If0/3VQSfRG8qTH1Nrok I3V+Rv3zHNAiiXxF4BMJ4WgNEvDbN1iNyDU2m+I2KDwn/ezZZK6Y+67gFThWVPlOXQ 3hHrGKDiXSXT0kepND2NKTrBwFVpaUuxh3CftwoRdmAF0JyOKi+7mw8dPJLd/oXecg oBWQVQfdJKXNkPjPjlnw/tf1AUQnfStPkPIzLAPv6e4j2gHlt1UsJV6meVmToT3u3h c99kCdEe/lAGw== Original-Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unknown [1.230.108.64]) by pv50p00im-zteg10021401.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91BA748052E; Tue, 5 May 2020 10:22:33 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-05_06:2020-05-04, 2020-05-05 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=495 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-2002250000 definitions=main-2005050084 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=17.58.6.47; envelope-from=pcr910303@icloud.com; helo=pv50p00im-zteg10021401.me.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/05 06:22:36 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer X-Spam_score_int: -15 X-Spam_score: -1.6 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, KHOP_DYNAMIC=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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:248962 Archived-At: 조성빈 작성: > Philippe Vaucher 작성: > >>>> Given this is more or less the position held by Alan, Eli, Richard, >>>> Drew and João I think the chances of seeing new aliases is close to 0. >>> >>> This is not my conclusion. I've seen several calls to move away from >>> from discussing in the abstract to discuss specific, concrete >>> examples. I think this is a good idea, since IMHO the abstract >>> discussion is likely exhausted. >>> >>> There is always the chance that some of the proposals will be voted >>> down. But also consider that some who have disagreed with you in the >>> abstract might be more convinced by specific, concrete proposals. >> >> So far the string- proposal got shot down entirely. The regexp one was >> initially a no-go from Alan but I then Richard kinda liked it and >> proposed adaptations. >> >> @Stefan Monnier: I see that you talked about `multibyte-string-p` >> already (and iirc that didn't went well. You talked earlier about >> `process-`, maybe you'd like to propose some changes there? > > I think for people to propose changes and get them adapted, we first have > to > have some proper goals to target. > > So there are a few people here who think renaming some functions is > beneficial > - but everybody’s reasoning is different here. Some people who are > opposed to > renaming are a bit confused. > > I think the two big goals are consistency and discoverability. And then > there > are various small arguments like it’s easier to use prefix based > completion and > function search, it’s easier to guess, namespace means less function name > clashing, etc… > > I think consistency is important, and if the language itself wants naming > things the ‘lisp-way’, I’m fine with a consistent naming scheme. I’m not > sure > if you’d agree or not, but maybe trying to find a consistent naming > scheme and > documenting them (which was called as the ‘lisp-way’ by some) might be > first. > And then we can rename the ones that don’t follow them. > >> I mean I'm willing to propose concrete changes but if it's not obvious >> for string- and regexp- why would it be for other topics? Let's try >> another topic just to see: >> >> rename-file -> file-rename >> delete-file -> file-delete >> copy-file -> file-copy >> expand-file-name -> file-expand-name >> >> Do you think people will be ok with that? > > The reason why I said about finding the naming scheme was because both the > function name rename-file and file-truename makes sense to me. > > I think some preliminary conventions that Elisp already follows is that the > - scheme is for actions on the object like rename-file or > clear-string, and - scheme is for getting properties of > the > object like string-width and file-name-extension. (I’m not considering > polymorphic ones.) > > But then there are exceptions, like string-trim (which should then be > trim-string) or string-join (which should then be join-string). > > What does everybody think about this? I think it would be less disruptive > and > controversial if some Elisp core API guidelines are decided, written, and > followed in the future. Then, if it turns out it’s useful enough, we can > start > aliasing functions that don’t follow them to names that do follow them (if > it’s desirable to do so.) I’ve CCed some Elisp users that I think would have some knowledge and opinions about this - can people dial in and codify the ‘lisp-way’ or the ‘elisp-way’ so that we can have some starting point of the API guidelines? (If someone is opposed to making an API guideline, can somebody explain the reasons too?)