[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs

From: 조성빈
Subject: Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs
Date: Sat, 2 May 2020 23:36:48 +0900

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> 작성:

From: Philippe Vaucher <address@hidden>
Date: Sat, 2 May 2020 16:05:29 +0200
Cc: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>, Emacs developers <address@hidden>,
        Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>, Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
 I can only talk about the stuff I'm familiar with.  Let others bring
 up counter-arguments from other places.  But while doing that, let's
 remember to compare the sizes of the languages, because a small enough
 language can definitely use an exhaustive list of candidates to the
 benefit of the users.

I don't understand why we still need to come up with examples of other languages (in other languages they
usually have namespaces as the norm), but here's a list of examples:


Thank you.  This shows 60 file-related functions.

Which… are all file-related. For example, if I want to know about whether a
file exists or not, I can go to the File:: and find out there’s a File::exist? method.

 Does anyone want to
look through a list that long to find what they need?  I don't.

(Funnily enough, "C-u C-h a file-name RET" also shows 63 functions
and commands.)

"C-u C-h a file exist RET” on the other hand, gives me 9 functions in my current session
(with functions totally unrelated, like ones from company-mode).

This particular function is easy to find, since it employs the prefix scheme,
so I can just guess it starts with file and type file-exi and let autocomplete help me,
but it still illustrates that C-u C-h a isn’t great enough.

reply via email to

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