Re: Add some aliases for re-related functions

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Philippe.

On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 10:05:40 +0200, Philippe Vaucher wrote:

> > 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.)


> Yes, naming is one of the hardest thing. Still when we see names that could
> be improved and where most agree shouldn't we try?

Most users don't agree.  Most users haven't expressed an opinion.  The
flood of bikeshedding that's gone on has been mainly between a very few
people echoing an apparent agreement between themselves.

Most importantly, Eli hasn't expressed his approval, and he's the main
person who keeps the show on the road.  Neither has Richard (as far as
I've seen), the originator of Emacs, and the person with the best
overview of its history and development.

> You make it sound like because naming is hard bad names are ok, ....

If there are bad function names in Emacs, lets fix them one by one, each
on its merits.

> .... or that any new name will be barely better as naming is hard. If
> I strawman your position we could name every new function as
> function5318759 with an incremental number because hey naming is hard
> we might as well give up :-)

re-do-something-with-regexps is different from function5318769 in
degree, but shares much of the essence.

> I'm joking of course :-)

Hmmm.

> Philippe

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).