> > While there might be some users who think that way, my workflow is mainly to use `C-h f` to find the help of
> > the function I'm interested in. This is where not properly namespaced libraries are hurting me.
And if it wasn't clear: "C-h f" is for looking up a function whose
name you already know. Which is AFAIU not the case in your original
use case.
My original use case is: I want to copy an association list, I know the function will probably have "copy" in its name and "alist", let's C-h f for "alist TAB" and fail because no results. Start again with "copy TAB" and filter the lots of "copy-*" function until I find copy-alist. Now imagine if this particual function was named "asscpy" instead how frustrated I'd be :-) Also imagine how self-documenting and self-discoverable Emacs Lisp would be if things where properly namespaced, like we ask for all packages to be on MELPA/ELPA and friends. Also autocompletion becomes much easier because you type "(alist-c" and it proposes alist-copy straight away. Sorry I'm a dreamer that like predictability & consistency :-)
As said earlier, probably that my way of thinking is not common around here, but I'd not be surprised if it was common for many developpers, maybe outside Emacs Lisp.
Philippe