On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:59 PM Philippe Vaucher wrote: > > Sure that's worth it? Wouldn't you rather work on namespaces? The two > > issues intersect! > > Out of curiosity, say "real" namespaces land in Emacs, do you reckon > we'd be able to agree on reasonably well-defined topics? > Sure, I think so. If they were here today, you could have the s.el library under the "modern-string" namespace or "magnar-string" namespace or something like that. I don't see it'd be contentious. In your library, you could then somehow indicate you'd like to use the "magnar-string" namespace and have access to what is now "magnar-string-empty-p" under just "empty-p". Or maybe you'd prefer to indicate you want to use the "magnar-string" namespace under the "s-" local nickname. Then you can type "s-empty-p" as you're used to. Same thing with dash.el that so many people like. Some parts of what is not yet in a namespace can be moved to a proper namespace with no breakage. So someone working a lot with a properly named lib today, say, "package.el" could -- locally -- access all those functions without the "package-" suffix. You could request completion for symbols in a space or maybe only "external" symbols in a space. The problem is rather agree on the form that this namespace system should take. There are many ways, all have advantages and disadvantages. From a purely cosmetic one to full-featured CL packages. See the other thread. -- João Távora