Re: master baf331e 3/3: Rename replace-in-string to string-replace

[Robert Pluim]

>>>>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 08:21:03 -0700 (PDT), Drew Adams 
>>>>> <drew.adams@oracle.com> said:


    Drew> FWIW - two things to say here, one about the name
    Drew> `string-replace' and one, more general, about naming.


    Drew> 1. `replace-in-string' is pretty self-explanatory,
    Drew> certainly more so than `string-replace'.  The latter
    Drew> makes you think that you're replacing one string with
    Drew> another (which you are) - but where?  In a buffer? file?
    Drew> the region?

    Drew> `string-replace' suggests the same that `replace-string'
    Drew> suggests.  And we already have `replace-string':
    Drew> "Replace occurrences of FROM-STRING with TO-STRING."
    Drew> Now we'll have `replace-string' and `string-replace'?
    Drew> Is that progress?

    Drew> IIUC, `replace-in-string' was rejected because of some
    Drew> incompatibility with XEmacs (name clash?).  If so,
    Drew> that's too bad, as replacing something within a string
    Drew> is pretty clear from that name.  And as the something
    Drew> isn't part in the name, it's pretty straightforward to
    Drew> guess that it's a substring that's being replaced.

Yes, itʼs an unfortunate clash. Then again, how much XEmacs code still
exists that depends on it?

    Drew> Both `replace-in-string' and `replace-regexp-in-string'
    Drew> are pretty clear.  `string-replace' and
    Drew> `string-replace-regexp' not so much.

I agree with this. However it seems some people are used to
<datatype>-<operation> type naming, hence the long discussion about
prefixing functions. (I use helm, which doesnʼt care what order the
subwords are in, presumably ivy/company etc donʼt either).

    Drew> Just sayin'.  I don't really have a great alternative
    Drew> here.  (`replace-substring'? `replace-within-string'?
    Drew> `replace-some-of-string'? `replace-string-substring'?)
    Drew> If `replace-in-string' is off limits for some reason
    Drew> then so be it - but too bad.

I can offer: 'replace-string-in-string', which has the advantage of
being very regular with regard to 'replace-regexp-in-string' (and with
completion should not be very difficult to type).

Robert
--