Re: [ELPA] New package: transient

[조성빈]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> 작성:

> > From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> > Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,
> >   address@hidden
> > Date: Sat, 02 May 2020 12:48:33 -0400
> >
> > > > Typical examples: is it `multibyte-string-p` or `string-multibyte-p`,
> > > > `file-name-absolute-p` or `absolute-file-name-p`, ... ?
> > > Then "C-u C-h a WORDS..." is your friend.
> >
> > Nope, way too slow.
>
> Is that the only problem? then let's speed it up, and Bob's our uncle.

My understanding is that slow here means that opening a new *Apropos*
buffer is an small, but additional mental burden when writing code, and
it slows down writing code.

> > I shouldn't have to do anything more than `str-mul TAB`.
>
> If you remembered the function's name, yes.  But that's not the use
> case we are discussing here.

I think there are a lot of use cases here buried in the flood of mail
- but everyone has a different use case where the prefix-convention will
work better. We’re not trying to say that Emacs’s documentation system is
not useful.

> > > > Yes, we can try and improve completion, but we have a real underlying
> > > > problem of irregular naming and completion would just help us paper
> > > > over it.
> > > The command "C-u C-h d regexp RET" brings up 111 matching functions.
> > > Who will have patience looking through that list, unless the likely
> > > candidates are near the beginning?
> >
> > IIUC that means you agree with my argument?
>
> Of course not!  I'm saying that "regular naming" will increase the
> length of the candidate list.

The regular naming scheme will mean that we can only search functions that
start with regexp - since the searcher doesn’t need grep-regexp-alist or
gmm-regexp-concat when trying to get regexp APIs.

> > > I don't object to this.  I'm just saying that the hope this will allow
> > > you to quickly find that-function-you-almost-remember-the-name-of are
> > > overly optimistic.
> >
> > We impose a prefix convention on the rest of the Elisp world, and while
> > some authors don't like it, I find that it is not just useful much more
> > generally than to avoid conflicts, so we should try and use it for
> > Emacs's core as well.
>
> The prefix convention we impose has almost nothing to do with the
> issue at hand, because the package's name in many (most?) cases says
> nothing about its domain of application.  E.g., take message.el or
> tmm.el or windmove.el or tempo.el or xdg.el, to name just a few random
> examples.
>
> > It's not a new opinion, BTW: I started doing that back in Emacs-21 with
> > the newcomment.el package which tried to stick to the "comment-" prefix
> > even for things which previously used a different name.
>
> Beginner's luck.  Occasionally, this could just happen to work, when
> the package's name happens to say something about its purpose.  But
> mostly it doesn't, as packages like the one whose name is in the
> Subject clearly demonstrate.