On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:56 PM Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org> wrote:

>
> It's not that your solution is bad per se --- it's that it's a bespoke
> solution that solves fewer problems than the general CL mechanism. Sure,
> the implementation is simple, but the CL approach isn't really that hard
> to implement either if we decide to do it.
>

Believe me, Daniel, when I tell you it's not me you need to convince ;-)

We should prefer familiar solutions to unfamiliar ones unless the new
> solution comes with some compelling advantage that compensates for its
> novelty, and I don't see the scheme you've proposed having enough of an
> advantage of the CL approach (which also allows prefix aliases) to
> compensate for being novel.
>

I couldn't agree more.  Really, I agree 100%.

Anyway, if you want to play around with my shorthand.el thing, here's
a dirty hack that fixes eldoc.

(defun shorthand-probe (w)
  (cl-loop
   for (short-pat . long-pat) in shorthand-shorthands
   thereis (intern-soft
            (replace-regexp-in-string short-pat long-pat w))))

(defun elisp--current-symbol ()
  (let ((c (char-after (point))))
    (and c
         (memq (char-syntax c) '(?w ?_))
         (let ((w (current-word)))
           (or (intern-soft w)
               (shorthand-probe w))))))

Stefan, can we make elisp--current-symbol use thingatpt.el so that
I only have to do this trick once (since I'll have to do it for M-. , too)

João