[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: map.el and naming
From: |
Artur Malabarba |
Subject: |
Re: map.el and naming |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Apr 2015 15:21:46 +0100 |
Would it be plausible to name the library "map.el", but name the
functions "m-" instead of "map-" (i.e., abbreviate the library name)?
The library could also be named "maps.el". It's slightly unorthodox to
use the plural, but it would emphasize that it refers to maps and not
to mapping.
2015-04-11 14:55 GMT+01:00 Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>:
>> I'm back with this issue. Since I have "map" both as a verb and as a
>> name, and because I don't want to call "mapping" something else, I think
>> I'll go with renaming the library.
>
> BTW, to give some idea of the tradeoffs, could you remind us of the main
> concrete problems you face when using "map" as the library name
> (i.e. actual functions whose name is hard to choose)?
>
>
> Stefan
>
- Re: map.el and naming, Nicolas Petton, 2015/04/10
- Re: map.el and naming, John Yates, 2015/04/11
- Re: map.el and naming, John Mastro, 2015/04/11
- Re: map.el and naming, Stefan Monnier, 2015/04/11
- Re: map.el and naming, Daniel Colascione, 2015/04/12
- Re: map.el and naming, Stefan Monnier, 2015/04/12
- Re: map.el and naming, Nicolas Petton, 2015/04/12
- Re: map.el and naming, Stefan Monnier, 2015/04/12
- Re: map.el and naming, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/12
- Re: map.el and naming, Yuri Khan, 2015/04/12