emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil


From: Philip Kaludercic
Subject: Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: devil
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 06:52:18 +0000

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Payas Relekar <relekarpayas@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>,  susam.pal@gmail.com,
>>  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 10:53:15 +0530
>> 
>> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > Why use the name "Devil" for this?  It doesn't seen to explain anything
>> > about the package's purpose.  It is likely to put some people off.
>> 
>> Every name is going to put someone or another off, can't really help it.
>> OpenBSD has their daemon and there are already funny anecdotes about it,
>> but it doesn't hurt anyone.

Also, "daemon" is not just an OpenBSD thing.

> "daemon" is a term whose meaning in computing context is widely
> accepted for many years.  "Devil' isn't.

I agree.

>> > If there is no clear reason why "Devil" is a good name, let's choose
>> > a better name now.
>> 
>> As mentioned by Susam in previous mail, as well as the repo README, the
>> name refers both to 'eVil' (extensible Vi Layer) as well as 'God-mode'.
>
> People are extremely unlikely to understand that, even if they know
> about Evil in Emacs.  And even if they do figure out this is related
> to Evil, the truth is that the package is not meant to be used by
> users of Evil.

I think it is more likely than you assume if you ask enthusiasts, but if
we consider the average user who doesn't hang around in Emacs-related
forums, chats, etc. then this is very true.

>> The name is distinct, and I like it for what it is.
>
> Please reconsider, I think this name is very unfortunate, because it
> gives users no clue whatsoever about the package's purpose.

Susam, what do you say?  Do you have any ideas?  A few names I can think
of might be:

- no-modifier-mode
- prefixless-mode
- implicit-ctrl-mode
- comma->control-mode

but I'm not really convinced by any of these (haven't really used the
package yet either).  Perhaps this might inspire someone else to come up
with a better suggestion?

If you really insist, then I think we really have to come up with a
better description, because "Minor mode for Devil-like command entering"
is really confusing.

> Thanks.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]