[slim-vim] the slime- prefix

[Larry Clapp]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 02:36:36PM -0700, Brad Beveridge wrote:
> On 26/07/06, Larry Clapp <larry at theclapp.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 08:48:10AM -0700, Brad Beveridge wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> Actually, I'm going to change my mind again :)
> It turns out that in order to do slime:foo, even internally to the
> package, we would need to export foo.  That's fine for the external
> functions, but not for every single function.  So I am now in favour
> of dropping the SLIME- prefix entirely.

Ah.  Indeed.  Well, we can still grep for slime-foo stuff in either
kind of file:

  grep -E '(slime[-:]:?)?foo'

Test case:

  % print -l "slime::foo" "slime:foo" "slime-foo" "foo" | grep -E '(slime[-:]:?)?foo'
  slime::foo
  slime:foo
  slime-foo
  foo

-- L