Re: tags for functions

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:15:21 -0500 "S+*n_Pe*rm*n" <stan@derbycityprints.com> wrote: 

SP> Tagging in the sense that you seem to be using the term is best left
SP> to domains which lack a characteristic structure and/or which can't
SP> be pre-limited/defined.

I think Emacs Lisp lacks a characteristic structure and it can't be
pre-limited or pre-defined.  It's an amorphous tangle of functions and
symbols.  Attempting to impose any kind of structure on that tangle is
not useful IMHO.

SP> You have the opportunity *now* to reduce the number of potential core
SP> `tags'. You appear to be suggesting that this is your intention. Such
SP> an effort is best characterized as the production of a controlled
SP> vocabulary.  Apropos of this, I am proposing you formalize the
SP> production according to the best practices outlined by the standard.

I will try, but I'm not going to follow a 180 page standard to the
letter.  The goal is discovery of similar functions, not classification
of everything (see my original post).

>> and others like proper name conventions just don't apply.
SP> What about Internationalization?

If you can be specific, one of the maintainers may give you an official
statement, but AFAIK at the Emacs Lisp level that's not a concern.

I appreciate your comments but I think your vision is far more ambitious
than my proposal and has completely different goals (though it could use
the facilities I plan to implement).  Perhaps you should start a
separate thread and make a specific proposal.  The standards you have
listed, while very thorough, are not as helpful in such a proposal as a
clear classification proposal that can be seen and touched.

Ted