> [Again, please consider using plain-text, not HTML, in your messages.]
I try to do that each time, e.g this message should be plain text. Tell me if it isn't. I reply from gmail and select "remove formatting".
> > You make it sound like because naming is hard
> > bad names are ok
> How did I make it sound like that to you?
By systematically showing examples where it's impossible and always rejecting proposals. Also your tone while your say this kinda imply this is a futile endeavor. Maybe it's just me misintepretating tho.
> If you look at the particular half-kidding examples
> I showed, you might see that they're not screwball.
> Nearly all of them are perfectly reasonable. And
> that's the point of showing them.
> With a command such as `flush-lines', if we want to
> prefix the name, just what is a good prefix?
> Is the command mostly about lines (the type of data
> acted on), so perhaps use prefix `lines-'?
> Is it mostly about regexp-matching/searching, so
> perhaps use prefix `re-'?
> Is it mostly about deleting text, so perhaps use
> prefix `delete-' (as in one of its aliases)?
First of all let's agree that nobody here proposed to rename flush-lines.
Anyway, if we had to do it I think all your categories are weak IMHO, sure it touches the concept of lines, regexp and deleting but fundamentally it's about modifying buffers. If I had to name it it'd be:
keep-lines -> buffer-keep-lines
flush-lines -> buffer-flush-lines
With more finesse I could argue for `buffer-modif-select` and `buffer-modif-reject` but I'd probably lose you ;-)