Re: epa command names

[Stefan Monnier]

>>> I have switched to using epa instead of mailcrypt.  The only drawback
>>> I see is that the command names are not natural; thus, remembering
>>> them is extra work.
>>> Shall we give them aliases without `epa-'?  For instance, define
>>> `mail-encrypt' or `encrypt-mail' as an alias for `epa-mail-encrypt'?
>> I don't much like this option because of the inability to handle
>> conflicts.  I'd much rather make M-x a bit more permissive such that M-x
>> mail-encrypt falls back to epa-mail-encrypt (probably via completion).
>> 
>> One way is something along the lines of the `substring' completion-style
>> (which we could restrict to substrings that start after a word boundary),
>> but I think we'd want something less general.
>> 
>> I'm thinking of a way for packages to say "if `mail-encrypt' is matched
>> by the user's input, then include `epa-mail-encrypt' in the list of
>> completion candidates".  This would handle conflicts very
>> straightforwardly since if we have a second rule "if `mail-encrypt' is
>> matched by the user's input, then include `superduper-mail-encrypt' in
>> the list of completion candidates" M-x mail-encrypt TAB would simply
>> provide both options as valid completion candidates.

> anything does that actually.

IIUC the "that" which it does is the "substrings that start after a word
boundary" matching, but not the other one (which requires extra manually
provided information, AFAICT).  Right?


        Stefan