> Sure that's worth it? Wouldn't you rather work on namespaces? The two
> issues intersect!
Out of curiosity, say "real" namespaces land in Emacs, do you reckon
we'd be able to agree on reasonably well-defined topics?
Sure, I think so. If they were here today, you could have
the s.el library under the "modern-string" namespace
or "magnar-string" namespace or something like that. I don't
see it'd be contentious. In your library, you could then somehow
indicate you'd like to use the "magnar-string" namespace
and have access to what is now "magnar-string-empty-p"
under just "empty-p". Or maybe you'd prefer to indicate
you want to use the "magnar-string" namespace under
the "s-" local nickname. Then you can type "s-empty-p"
as you're used to. Same thing with dash.el that so many
Some parts of what is not yet in a namespace can be
moved to a proper namespace with no breakage. So
someone working a lot with a properly named lib
today, say, "package.el" could -- locally -- access all
those functions without the "package-" suffix.
You could request completion for symbols in a space
or maybe only "external" symbols in a space.
The problem is rather agree on the form that this
namespace system should take. There are many ways,
all have advantages and disadvantages. From a purely
cosmetic one to full-featured CL packages. See the other