Quoting Robert Widhopf-Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Just wondering, will it be an issue that all our files are > xtla* but all the funs/vars/... are tla-*.
The prefix used to be xtla-*, but 1) This is longer to type 2) Most users just won't care about the name of the package. They just want to call tla through Emacs. This is the approach followed by PCL-CVS, and I think it is good. The package name is PCL-CVS, but as a user, you don't even have to know it: type M-x cvs-whatever RET does what you want. However, the file names are prefixed by "pcvs". We are in the special case of a package which is a wrapper around an external tool. I think it's good to differenciate the tool and the wrapper, and avoid calling the package "tla". (By the way, Stefan, where does the 'x' come from?) > Someone might come up with tla*.el and then we get naming > conflicts as they are naming all their stuff tla-*. There used to be several tla wrappers for Emacs. We now try to have only one, but yes, name clash is possible. I think the best way to avoid this is to make xtla visible enough, so that people learn about its existance before hacking anything else about tla. > Also it is not "intuitive" for apropos users, i.e. when I > wand to get an quick overview on a package I do C-h a > ^PACKAGENAME RET ... I don't agree here. If I want to use tla from Emacs, and want some help, I'd rather try M-x apropos RET ^tla RET, because I can't guess about the 'x' in front of "tla". -- Matthieu ------------------------------------------------- envoyé via Webmail/IMAG !
