[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 11:10:44 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0

On 2016-10-11 10:54, Elias Mårtenson wrote:
> On 11 October 2016 at 21:33, Clément Pit--Claudel
> <address@hidden <mailto: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"?

Indeed.  Have you had this problem in practice, though?

> 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"?

It's generally sufficient to look at the name of the file that declares that 
function.  For example, gnu-apl-interactive-mode presumably lives in 
gnu-apl.el.  If not, then you can set a file-local variable indicating what the 
library's prefix is.

> 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.

nameless uses ':' for display (and '::' for private members), indeed.  Some 
packages use / (yas/, for example)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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