[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposal to change naming format to allow package-prefix/function-na
Re: Proposal to change naming format to allow package-prefix/function-name
Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:06:16 +0100
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2
On 31.12.19 11:14, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> Adam Porter <address@hidden> writes:
>> Whatever the character used, as long as it's visually distinctive and
>> easy to type, I think it would be helpful to both users and developers
>> to allow it to be used to separate the package/feature name from the
>> rest of the symbol name.
> I don't. In Common Lisp, it's a functional thing, and it's easy to
> remember that foo:bar-zot is a thing, but in Emacs Lisp, where it would
> just be a character that's not sounded when you read the symbol, it's
> just confounding. In the past, when working on Emacs Lisp code bases
> where somebody has been creative with non-letter characters, I always
> find myself having to try all the variations to find the correct symbol,
> because what my brain remembers is "foo bar zot", and not whatever is in
> between those letters.
> foo:bar-zot? foo-bar:zot? foo:bar/zot?
Maybe using a char suffix would be better so it would better align with current
and make it easier to search/complete for users which expect those: