|
From: | Stefan Kangas |
Subject: | 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)) |
Date: | Sat, 2 Oct 2021 17:22:29 +0200 |
Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org> writes: > A handful Elisp libraries have decided (for good reasons, but against the > common practice so far) to use a short prefix for their functions. That > doesn't seem a sufficient reason to design namespaces in Elisp in such a > way that these particular libraries need to be changed as little as > possible. This might be a tangent, but can we really say that shorthands implements namespaces? AFAIU, namespaces means that you restrict the scope of identifiers (or symbols) so that identically named identifiers in different scopes don't conflict. But shorthands does not do that, and would therefore be better described precisely as a work-around for the lack of namespaces. Or am I missing something?
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |