Re: [STUMP] interactive command in symbol plist

[Howard Yeh]

On 5/4/08, Shawn Betts <address@hidden> wrote:
> >  Using symbol-plist means it's possible to take advantage of the
>  >  package system. Using hash, we are effectively back to a single
>  >  namespace. As mechanisms, there's no difference between the two. But
>  >  with package it's much easier for library writers to avoid naming
>  >  conflict.
>  >
>  >  Else we'd have to prefix every defnitions with the package name, as in
>  >  Emacs. Which sucks...
>
>
> command names are symbols, so they do belong to a package. But when
>  you use them interactively they're converted to a string. If you mean
>  that the package would prefix the command name then the only
>  difference would be a : vs a -. I fail to see how using the
>  symbol-plist would benefit. It seems it would be slower than a hash
>  because you'd have to search all packages and all symbols

I think you got what I mean backward. Suppose the homepackage is
stupwm. To invoke stumpwm:foo interactively, user types "foo" (i.e.
(intern "foo") ). To invoke emacs:foo, user types "emacs:foo". Vice
versa.

This is not just pedantic quibbling... I hope not. I am thinking about
some kind of mode framework, and not using the package system might
make it more clumsy than necessary.

So my point isn't that "stumpwm:foo" rather than "stumpwm-foo" is
somehow easier for M-x.

>  it would mean reimplementing something that works fine already.

That's the rub. I can always do it on an experimental branch.

But I should take a closer look at it.