From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: tags for functions Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:38:45 -0600 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <86eiyv6ppm.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1232656829 9960 80.91.229.12 (22 Jan 2009 20:40:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:40:29 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 22 21:41:42 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LQ6Mv-0003zZ-ON for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:41:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56118 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LQ6Le-0001Km-2u for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:40:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LQ6JC-0000Qi-E5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:37:50 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LQ6JA-0000Q7-QE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:37:50 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54458 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LQ6JA-0000Q4-KU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:37:48 -0500 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:36781 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LQ6JA-0004c8-5a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:37:48 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LQ6J5-0005P2-KB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:37:43 +0000 Original-Received: from 38.98.147.130 ([38.98.147.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:37:43 +0000 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:37:43 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 35 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.98.147.130 X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:A2D12VjlzFJiexvEsUy8B6D4qfM= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:108112 Archived-At: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:15:21 -0500 "S+*n_Pe*rm*n" 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