> On May 2, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> 
> Hello, Yuan.
> 
> On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 14:28:08 -0400, Yuan Fu wrote:
>> While debating whether it’s effective to add prefixes to increase
>> discoverability, lets start with incremental and uncontroversial
>> changes.
> 
> Ha!  No chance!  ;-(
> 
> I don't believe these proposed changes will increase discoverability to
> any important extent.  More importantly, they will decrease the
> usability of these functions, as they will be more of a hassle to type
> in and (more importantly) make the functions they are in more difficult
> to read.
> 
>> Let’s start from re-related functions since it seems that many people
>> agree on this. Here is a list of functions that I think could benefit
>> from an alias. 
> 
>> replace-regexp-in-string	re-replace-in-string
>> replace-match			re-replace-match
>> string-match			re-search-in-string
>> string-match-p			re-match-in-string-p
>> match-string			re-matched-string
>> match-string-no-properties	re-matched-string-no-properties
>> match-beginning			re-match-beginning
>> match-end			re-match-end
> 
>> looking-at			re-match-after-point
>> looking-back			re-match-before-point
>> looking-at-p			re-match-after-point-p
>> posix-search-forward		re-posix-search-forward
>> posix-search-backward		re-posix-search-backward
>> posix-looking-at		re-posix-looking-at
>> posix-search-in-string		re-posix-search-in-string
> 
>> Let’s do it like this: if you don’t like adding alias to a certain
>> function (strongly), call it out and we will remove it from the list
>> for now.
> 
> I strongly object to those aliases which make the function name longer.
> I particularly object to `re-match-after-point' for `looking-at'.  Not
> only is it much longer, it lacks the instant readibility of looking-at,
> and the slightly humorous notion of "looking", as though with ones eyes.
> I particularly object to `re-matched-string', which has double the
> number of syllables in it as the original.
> 
> As a small point, you've erased the commonality between
> match-beginning/end and match-string.  This is a bad thing.
> 
>> Then we should have a small list that everybody agrees upon (or at
>> least no one absolutely hates). 
> 
> I hate your list.  ;-)  (Nothing personal in that.)
> 
>> And please do not drift the topic away in this thread, which hinders
>> the original purpose of the thread. Let’s focus on these functions and
>> only these functions.
> 
> As long as people do not take for granted that introducing lots of
> aliases is a good thing.  I believe it is not.
> 
>> Yuan
> 
> -- 
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

That’s ok. I guess my plan failed. 

Yuan