Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> > Example from the Info manual
>
> > ;; read-symbol-shorthands: (("snu-" . "some-nice-string-utils-"))
>
> > The "snu-" definition is not recorded anywhere, nothing is preventing
> > someone else from also using "snu-", or warning about it.
>
> There is no need to prevent someone else from using it. Each file's
> shorthands are local: they do not conflict with other files. If you
> want to define `snu-' as a shorthand in your file, go ahead.
There is no control over this, at least in the present implementation.
Nothing makes sure or warns if you bind read-symbol-shorthands in
whichever way you want.
>
> You can't
> > find out that "snu-" was used to read it from looking at a symbol,
>
> Why does that matter?
> If what appears in the code is `some-nice-string-utils-concat', when is
> it crucial to find out whether a shorthand was used to enter it?
It's the other way round: there is snu-concat in some buffer, and you
want to get to some-nice-string-utils-concat. How do you get there? Or
is the plan that one can find that out in source file, and not in
*scratch*? And so on.
> Is this about the grep shortcoming? I don't think CL packages avoid
> that.
No, that was a bad example of me.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4