Re: Namespaces - summary, conclusion

[Philippe Vaucher]

> I think consistency is important, and if the language itself wants naming
> things the ‘lisp-way’, I’m fine with a consistent naming scheme. I’m not sure
> if you’d agree or not, but maybe trying to find a consistent naming scheme
> and
> documenting them (which was called as the ‘lisp-way’ by some) might be first.
> And then we can rename the ones that don’t follow them.

That makes a lot of sense.


> What does everybody think about this? I think it would be less disruptive and
> controversial if some Elisp core API guidelines are decided, written, and
> followed in the future. Then, if it turns out it’s useful enough, we can
> start
> aliasing functions that don’t follow them to names that do follow them (if
> it’s desirable to do so.)

It'd also be easier for future discussions to point out to the current
"standard", and for people to propose changes.