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

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

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