Re: Namespaces - summary, conclusion

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Philippe Vaucher <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 11:27:00 +0200
> 
> The proposal of aliasing or renaming Elisp functions that some of us
> feel inadequately named/grouped got mostly a strong resistance by what
> can be considered iconic figures of this community.
> [...]
> Given this is more or less the position held by Alan, Eli, Richard,
> Drew and João I think the chances of seeing new aliases is close to 0.

I think you jump to conclusions too quickly.  Each one of the named
individuals expressed quite different views about the
renaming/aliasing proposals.  In particular, the degree of resistance
to any and all such changes from each one of those people was very
different.  AFAIU, only Alan is completely opposed to any such change.

It should not surprise anyone that a proposal to summarily rename many
of our core APIs should not be agreed to lightly.  Show me another
project that did something like that.

That said, if we are willing to continue discussing this, we might be
able to agree to some small enough group of functions for which more
systematically-named aliases could be added.

> Until now every one of the proposed aliases (in string- or regexp-)
> were rejected for arguably good reasons but the message is pretty
> clear, I think aliases in Emacs core are a dead end (for now, that
> might change later) and will only live in libraries in MELPA (or ELPA
> is authors care).

That's not my conclusion.  I think a small number of aliases could be
agreed to, based on the responses.

I urge you not to give up.

Thanks.