Re: Proposal: Forwards-Compatibility Library for Emacs

[Stefan Monnier]

> The point here is to not to have any separate namespace, so that you can
> just can put core packages into ELPA without doing any rewrites.
> What's the concrete risk here?

I think in practice it's usually not a problem, but I'd be surprised if
there aren't counter examples.  So for a library that wants to do it in
a somewhat predictable/systematic way, I think it's much simple to have
all the definitions in a specific namespace (like `compat28-`), and then
it's a small matter of have a trivial `compat28.el` library that comes
with Emacs-28 which has a bunch of `defalias`.

The main advantage is that we then don't need to assess the possible
risks at all, so we're free to think about the things that actually matter.


        Stefan