[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Emacs Lisp's future

From: Clément Pit--Claudel
Subject: Re: Emacs Lisp's future
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:33:34 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0

On 2016-10-11 03:16, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> On 2016-10-11, at 06:18, Clément Pit--Claudel <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 2016-10-11 00:06, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>>> BTW, someone (Raman?) on this thread said that namespaces save typing.
>>> That's not exactly right; that goal is achieved with autocompletion (as
>>> he already noticed).  What namespaces really do is twofold:
>>> 1. Help avoid collisions, and
>>> 2. (last but not least!) save on reading.
>>> Long function names are really bad.
>> I think nameless makes both of these a non-issue.  You get "import x as y" 
>> using custom prefixes (such as fl: for font-lock), and for your own code 
>> there's no typing (C-- inserts the package prefix) and no wasted space.
>> Bottom line: I don't see much use for proper namespaces :)
> That's only true to some extent.  Both names and nameless packages (even
> though I really appreciate them) are really prosthetics; I'd have to
> check it, but how do they behave with tools like xref-find-definitions,
> edebug, lispy and others?  I'm pretty sure that names won't cooperate
> with them nicely (I vaguely remember trying, though I'm not sure), I'd
> have to check nameless.

I never used names.  Nameless works entirely fine with all of the tools you 
mentioned, because it only touches font-locking.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]