Jakob Eriksson <ja...@vmlinux.org> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 02:51:32PM +0700, Henrik Sarvell wrote:
>> Having to write the full name all the time could easily become
>> comical, as in my above Clojure example. This is also one of the
>> reasons I have leaned towards
> +1
> Imagine all the rants which could be made about code full of both
> parens AND ultralong function names. :-)

Hi Jakob,
from my 'innocent' newbie perspective to both, PicoLisp and Emacs Lisp,
I can report that ultralong function names and straight documentation
conventions in Emacs Lisp helped me _a lot_ in understanding elisp source code,
even without full understanding of the language, while lack of
documentation (except for the core functions) and cryptically short
functions names do represent an obstacle when trying to understand
Picolisp source code. 

Imho, this is one topic were Picolisp could improve by copying some
habits from the Emacs Lisp community. 
And, with an editor like Emacs, those ultralong function names are not as
impracticable as one would think. 

UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Reply via email to