Re: Proposal to change naming format to allow package-prefix/function-name

[Ihor Radchenko]

> ... I always find myself having to try all the variations to find the
> correct symbol, because what my brain remembers is "foo bar zot", and
> not whatever is in between those letters.

> foo:bar-zot?  foo-bar:zot?  foo:bar/zot?

I support this point. It will indeed be a problem for vanilla Emacs
completion users.

Let me propose an alternative solution.

The proposal is trying to solve the problem of distinguishing the
package name from function name.
Why not just highlight the feature name in the completion buffer?
Emacs knows which `provide` (if any) corresponds to every function anyway.

Best,
Ihor



Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> writes:

> Adam Porter <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Whatever the character used, as long as it's visually distinctive and
>> easy to type, I think it would be helpful to both users and developers
>> to allow it to be used to separate the package/feature name from the
>> rest of the symbol name.
>
> I don't.  In Common Lisp, it's a functional thing, and it's easy to
> remember that foo:bar-zot is a thing, but in Emacs Lisp, where it would
> just be a character that's not sounded when you read the symbol, it's
> just confounding.  In the past, when working on Emacs Lisp code bases
> where somebody has been creative with non-letter characters, I always
> find myself having to try all the variations to find the correct symbol,
> because what my brain remembers is "foo bar zot", and not whatever is in
> between those letters.
>
> foo:bar-zot?  foo-bar:zot?  foo:bar/zot?
>
> -- 
> (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
>    bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
>

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
PhD,
Center for Advancing Materials Performance from the Nanoscale (CAMP-nano)
State Key Laboratory for Mechanical Behavior of Materials, Xi'an Jiaotong 
University, Xi'an, China
Email: address@hidden, address@hidden