Hello, Yuan.On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 14:28:08 -0400, Yuan Fu wrote:
While debating whether it’s effective to add prefixes to increaseHa! No chance! ;-(I don't believe these proposed changes will increase discoverability toany important extent. More importantly, they will decrease theusability of these functions, as they will be more of a hassle to typein and (more importantly) make the functions they are in more difficultto read.
discoverability, lets start with incremental and uncontroversial
Let’s start from re-related functions since it seems that many people
agree on this. Here is a list of functions that I think could benefit
from an alias.
Let’s do it like this: if you don’t like adding alias to a certainI strongly object to those aliases which make the function name longer.I particularly object to `re-match-after-point' for `looking-at'. Notonly is it much longer, it lacks the instant readibility of looking-at,and the slightly humorous notion of "looking", as though with ones eyes.I particularly object to `re-matched-string', which has double thenumber of syllables in it as the original.As a small point, you've erased the commonality betweenmatch-beginning/end and match-string. This is a bad thing.
function (strongly), call it out and we will remove it from the list
Then we should have a small list that everybody agrees upon (or atI hate your list. ;-) (Nothing personal in that.)
least no one absolutely hates).
And please do not drift the topic away in this thread, which hindersAs long as people do not take for granted that introducing lots ofaliases is a good thing. I believe it is not.
the original purpose of the thread. Let’s focus on these functions and
only these functions.
Yuan-- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
That’s ok. I guess my plan failed.