Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: bug#50959: 28.0.50; Shorthand symbols are unknown to Emacs

From: João Távora <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 21:19:17 +0100

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:59 PM Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > In this thread, we've described many ways how that can be done.
> > C-x o already "pays attention" to them, from day one, but that attention
> > is somehow deemed insufficient.  So you'll have to be clearer about
> > what you're suggesting exactly, i.e., "what happens when".
>
> As an ELisp programmer, I'd want (and expect) that if I can successfully
> use `st-bar` and `st-foo` in the current buffer, I will see them in the
> possible completions at least when I complete `st-` and ideally in other
> cases (e.g. it would be good for completion of `sba` to take `st-bar`
> into account if `flex` completion style).
>

1) If by "use in the current buffer" you mean "insert in the current buffer"
then your wish makes full sense to me and is already granted, fully, via
C-M-i.

2) If you're talking about querying the single global database of symbols
using M-x describe-symbols, then you must address symbols by their
full name, as you have always done. It's easy to do so:

2a) by placing point under the form of interest.  If it happens to be
shorthand
it will automatically be picked up.  Shorthands are now visually highlighted
as such.

2b) by typing the shorthands as such and typing TAB to complete them to
the full symbol name.  This is only if you enter the query interface from
the buffer where the shorthands exist.

I think this is more than sufficient. I've worked for years and years with
a CL system that only does 1) and 2a). I've worked side-by-side with
people using it. I even forked and maintained such a system.  I've never
seen requests or complaints for anything more in this regard.  Sure, we
are all different and some of us are more demanding, and that's a good
thing, but it's a fact that the vast majority of Emacs users haven't used
a namespacing system in Elisp for a long time, possibly ever.  Shouldn't
we give this first  conservative approach a shot first?

João