Re: Declaring Lisp function types

[Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Like I said: searching for symbols of a programming language
> is not a good idea. It is not efficient, and thus not
> useful. So this aspect is simply not relevant to the issue
> at hand.

Oh, people do that all the time, from inside and outside of
Emacs. There are many use cases for that, from finding what
caused error messages to simply navigating a buffer, and
many others.

So he has a point, it just that such concerns probably
shouldn't be what determines how the syntax of a language
looks. If "function" is the best way to describe it, it
probably is and that it will be hard(er) to find with certain
methods, well, that can't be helped.

But instead of arguing about people's workflows, let's just
put all suggestions on the table and have a look.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal