On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 9:12 AM Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>
wrote:

> FWIW, I don't see any major benefit to having "-test" in the test name,
> > as the fact that it's a test is immediately obvious in all contexts
> > where you see them.  So it mostly just makes the test names longer.
>
> For me, who doesn't know the eglot codebase, it is helpful to see,
> whether a Lisp object belongs to eglot or eglot-tests.
>
> Prior my changes, there were even the defun `eglot-lsp-abiding-column'
> and the ert-deftest `eglot-lsp-abiding-column'. Terrible!


FWIW this doesn't seem "terrible!" to me at all.  The way I (and those
who teached me) see Lisp, symbols can have multiple bindings in
different domains.  So the same symbol may have a function binding,
a value binding and why not a test binding? A unit-test for testing a
given function may well be named after the function it is testing.

Namespacing is a good alternative to separate domains, sure, but
namespacing in Emacs is... err... not without its challenges.

João