Re: image-transform.el and image-mode.el rewrite

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:50:20 -0500
> 
> >> > With the exception of `image-mode-fit-frame` all renames either added or
> >> > removed -mode- from the name. The rationale is very simple. Functions
> >> > that operate on images and are meaningful outside of `image-mode` don't
> >> > have -mode- in the name.
> >> Makes sense.
> > Now _I_ am confused.  I thought the "image-mode-" prefix was for
> > namespace reasons, because the symbols are defined in a package named
> > "image-mode".  I thought this was our rule: to request such prefixes
> > based on the package name.
> 
> Many packages use more than one prefix.  Some packages use only one
> prefix, but it is slightly different from the file name.  Other packages
> use one prefix shared by several files.
> So, the rule is somewhat flexible.

No matter what is the current situation, the question is what we want
it to be.  I guess the answer is more or less "we don't care".