Closed rnkn closed 8 years ago
Hi @rnkn Yes! I know this document. I had to write code in this style. It is easy to rewrite the code, but, when should I do that?
This is my excuse for naming convention: Unfortunately I had studied emacs lisp before this document. https://github.com/emacs-mirror/emacs/commit/4f1e25e2c999be13ae6c111443085c799eb825fd And I noticed the package naming convention 3 years ago...
My thinking would be the easiest thing to do is first defalias
interactive functions with the calfw-
prefix (or cfw-
) to make it more obvious for newcomers. Then defalias
all symbols after. I could submit a pull request or requests doing this grunt work if you'd like?
If you decide to rewrite the code with the prefix, the defalias
functions can then easily be changed to define-obsolete-variable-alias
and define-obsolete-function-alias
. This way it should all go smoothly and retain backwards compatibility, so you would not need to wait until a 2.0 release to make the switch (if you wanted to keep with semantic versioning).
I'm sorry for my late response.
defalias
is good idea! Would you make the PR?
Sorry I forgot about this. I don't use Org Mode anymore so it's unlikely I'll focus on this. Feel free to close.
Ok. I close this issue. Maybe calfw should fix the package prefix in future...
Wonderful package that could be made even more wonderful with standard symbol prefixes.
From Emacs Lisp Coding Conventions:
e.g.
cfw:open-calendar-buffer
tocfw-open-calendar-buffer
:)