Re: A read-based grep-like for symbols (el-search?) (was Do shorthands break basic tooling (tags, grep, etc)? (was Re: Shorthands have landed on master))

[Adam Porter]

João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com> writes:

>> I think the "private" symbols are largely irrelevant to this
>> discussion. Unless people really are (?) going to use shorthands for
>> them.
>
> I would.  In fact, I would use them _prominently_ for private symbols,
> which are the vast majority of symbols I write and precisely where I
> feel most pain.  eglot--this, eglot--that, eglot-test--foo.  For
> definitions of external symbols, like '(defun eglot-super-important-bit
> () )' I would _not_ use them, precisely to safeguard answering some
> basic questions with "grep".

Yes, I'd also like to use them within a package.  For example, in
org-super-agenda.el, rather than "org-super-agenda-this" and
"org-super-agenda--that", it would be nice to be able to write something
like "osa-this" and "osa--that" (or, if I wanted to be cute, something
like "~/this" and "~/-that", since some kind of prefix is still
required).