> That's the rub/misunderstanding, I think. That
> namespaces are used does not imply that naming
> need be based on object type.
The propositions here aren't to group based on *types*.
Please stop those strawman arguments, again.
E.g. the `re-<foo>` renaming is not about any rind of "regular
_expression_ type". They're based on the same notions of namespacing used
in modules/packages/younameit, which is also the namespacing used in
Elisp packages, as a matter of fact, so it's really not a concept
foreign to Elisp.
There's ambiguity in Elisp, there has always been. The first word can be just a word or designate a namespace. The clearer the way the prefix conveys which one of the two it means, the better. But ambiguity because of shared namespace is inevitable. So list- and string- are bad choices. process- and package- and request- are slightly better, if one momentarily erases the verbs from one's mind. re- and rx- are better, though kinda short. gnus-, eww- , yas- are great, IMO.
João