From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tomas Hlavaty Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Do shorthands break basic tooling (tags, grep, etc)? (was Re: Shorthands have landed on master) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:50:21 +0200 Message-ID: <877deyjc5e.fsf@logand.com> References: <16338bdc2497fc51c6fb6d54ab370bfb@webmail.orcon.net.nz> <874ka5gsqa.fsf@gnus.org> <25d8d72022b571db5291@heytings.org> <87h7e2xsl5.fsf@gmail.com> <25d8d72022e1ea7ed022@heytings.org> <87h7e2jjzy.fsf@logand.com> <87bl4ajg0c.fsf@logand.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="37887"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 30 18:23:31 2021 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 1mVyqJ-0009iV-AX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:23:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47408 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mVyqE-0003ui-Li for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:23:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41042) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mVyKL-00043F-Be for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:50:29 -0400 Original-Received: from logand.com ([37.48.87.44]:41326) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mVyKH-00018A-O0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:50:28 -0400 Original-Received: by logand.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1587119EB31; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:50:23 +0200 (CEST) X-Mailer: emacs 27.2 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I) In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=37.48.87.44; envelope-from=tom@logand.com; helo=logand.com X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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:275912 Archived-At: On Thu 30 Sep 2021 at 15:57, Jo=C3=A3o T=C3=A1vora w= rote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:27 PM Tomas Hlavaty wrote: > >> That does not work. Common Lisp reader is programable. If you do not >> compile and load everything needed sucessfully, the reader will fail for >> anything non-trivial. > > Those non-trivial things are quite rare, Not really. > and good reader etiquette makes the code that is CL:READ with a > non-full reader at least make a good deal of sense. What is "good reader etiquette"? What if some library does not have "good reader etiquette"? Do you give up search because of that? >> > You're supposed to have it loaded in your image while you develop it. >> >> You can restrict yourself like that but why do you think that it is a >> reasonable restriction for everybody? > > I don't know if it's a restriction. It's what I and many consider the mo= st > useful way to work with Lisp. To have symbolic information at our > fingertips. You like to have line-based literal-text information, sure go > ahead! But you'll be missing a lot of free structure. > It's free symbolic real-estate! It is not a choice between one or the other. I need both. Please do not break grep and web search. >> > And grep fails very horribly in Common Lisp as you well know, if >> > you include the package qualifier. >> That's why good programmers make effort to choose good names independent >> of language. > > So when you program CL you repeat the package qualifier in the symbol nam= e? > I've seen that, yuck. And you never use `:USE` (not even` :USE :CL`) and = you > always refer to the same symbol by the very same name every time? And > all your colleagues and the code you use in Common Lisp does that? Use common sense and do not work against the available tools. There are some heuristics for choosing good names.