Re: Add some aliases for re-related functions

[Philippe Vaucher <philippe.vaucher@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1696 bytes --]

>
> 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.
>

Just wanted to explicit that this assume we know both function already. If
I don't know `posix-search-forward` but know one exists, but cannot
remember if it's regexp-search-posix-forward or posix-regexp-forward or
forward-search-posix, in Yuan's proposal I could "C-h f re- TAB posix TAB
and select "re-posix-search-forward" quickly.

Without that I have to C-h d "regexp posix" and curse because it returns no
result (Eli <--- please fix this), then search for C-h d posix and only
then find it.



> 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.
>

Just to be clear, you don't like aliases because if they were to be used
you'd hate reading code using them, correct?
I mean you agree they won't take away your ability to use the old names?

Philippe

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2247 bytes --]