[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: library/package filename prefixes
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: library/package filename prefixes |
Date: |
Mon, 04 May 2020 17:30:44 +0300 |
> From: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 03 May 2020 23:08:47 -0400
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
>
> In your list, some of the files do use a two-letter name prefix,
> but others do not.
>
> lisp/cedet/srecode/el.el does not. Neither does
> lisp/cedet/semantic/sb.el.
>
> lisp/emacs-lisp/pp.el does use a two-letter prefix.
> Perhaps we should change it.
>
> lisp/emacs-lisp/gv.el uses a two-letter prefix.
> I expect that the functions named starting 'gv-' are not used from a lot
> of user code, so it should not be hard to rename them.
>
> Does anyone oppose renaming them?
>
> lisp/bs.el does use 'bs-' as a nane prefix.
> I have a hunch the entry points are not called very often.
> Should we rename that?
>
> It would be easy to rename po.el and its one entry point,
> which is called in just one place.
>
> Eli, what do you think about renaming these files
> if doing so is painless?
I see no reason to rename the prefixes of pp, gv, and po. They are
all accepted acronyms. Also, the consensus seems to be that re- is a
good prefix, so why not those?
If we don't rename the prefixes, there's no need to rename the files.