Re: Emacs Lisp's future

[Elias Mårtenson]

On 11 October 2016 at 21:33, Clément Pit--Claudel <address@hidden> wrote:

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

All of these tools have the problem that it's difficult to tell what part of a symbol is its "namespace". How do you tell the difference between the symbols "foo-bar" without a namespace, or "bar" with namespace "foo"?

Also, some Emacs Lisp packages have a dash in the name. How would an automated tool know that the symbol gnu-apl-interactive-mode is actually "interactive-mode" with the namespace "gnu-apl"?

I guess I'm just curious as to why a separate symbol isn't used? : sounds good, and gnu-apl:interactive-mode would be much more clear. Automated tools would also be able to make more sense out of symbol names.

Elias