Re: master f117b5df4d: Add new functions eol and bol

[Po Lu]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>   > It depends how you read them.  If you try to pretend they're some kind
>   > of English sentence, indeed they don't make as much sense as
>   > `pos-at-bol` or `line-end-position`, but you read them as "the `bol`
>   > function in the `pos` package", then I think they make perfect sense.
>
> I agree that those names make sense.  I'd expect them to be defined in
> a bare Emacs -- so does it make sense to think of `pos' as a "package"?

Why would pos be a package?