[slim-vim] the slime- prefix

[Larry Clapp]

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 08:48:10AM -0700, Brad Beveridge wrote:
> On 25/07/06, Larry Clapp <larry at theclapp.org> wrote:
> > A note on the "slime-" prefix naming convention (slime-connect,
> > slime-disconnect, slime-this, slime-that): slime.el uses that
> > naming convention because Elisp doesn't have packages.  Since we
> > do, I would rather just use the package name: slime:this and
> > slime:that.  It bugs me to have to say slime:slime-this and
> > slime:slime-that, you know?
> >
> > It *has* occurred to me that keeping the exact same function names
> > *may* make it easier to keep in sync with slime.el, so I
> > acknowledge that reasonable people might disagree and that making
> > such a change involves trade-offs.
> >
> > What does the group think?
> 
> I could probably be convinced either way.  Initially I wanted to
> mimic slime.el where possible, but I think that packaging is the way
> to go.  However, even within the package I think I would like to use
> fully qualified names.
> 
> eg
> (defpackage #:slime
>  (:export #:connect))
> (in-package #:slime)
> (defun slime:connect () ....)
> 
> That way you can grep slime.el and slime.lisp for functions with the
> regular expression slime.foo, and match both.

That works for me.  Good thinking.

In general, I think a package shouldn't fully-qualify its own symbols,
but in this case I think it serves a purpose.  Possibly this will fail
the test of time, but for now it seems like a good compromise.

-- Larry