RE: Add some aliases for re-related functions

[Drew Adams]

> > I really cannot wait till you get to renaming
> > functions concerning lines: `line-...' or
> > perhaps `lines-...'.  And their aliases...
> 
> I must say I find this mildly offensive.
> It's basically a strawman argument.

It was tongue-in-cheek (whimsical exaggeration),
not a serious argument (unless someone actually
does think it could/should be done for lines).

> All of us arguing in favor of structuring the
> namespace have made it very clear we have no
> intention of applying this everywhere.
> 
> Please stop.

Sorry.  It was meant as humor, to lighten things
up.  Clearly failed at that.

It wasn't intended to be taken literally.  But
the point behind it (there was one) was just
that naming is hard.  It's not easy to find a
reasonable and consistent way to name things,
including functions.  (I think we agree about
that, at least.)

Again, sorry for any misunderstanding I caused.