Sorry, it probably didn't help that this "for blue" slipped in when typing on my phone.
> If the docstring reader is ever enhanced, then maybe programmers can refer to symbols there using
> shorthands. Until then, shorthands are Lisp-only.
I don't understand this response. Are you saying that the problem
doesn't exist, or are you saying that you just don't care? Or are you
saying something else?
I understand. I'm saying docstrings are outside the functional scope of shorthands, so you should just use longhand there for now. Same as you must use in M-x and other "global" contexts. Because shorthands are not new names for symbols.
But I'm also saying that, perhaps, for the particular case of docstrings, which are inherently file-local constructs, the "docstring reader", whenever it lives, could be enhanced to allow shorthands, too. So the intermediate representation of the docstring mini-language could understand that the text x-foo actually references the symbol xeno-foo. And then C-h f would display the true symbol name as it usually does.
But this would basically be a new feature, not strictly necessary to enable the things that shorthands are originally designed for. But convenient, for sure.
João