bug#62677: 30.0.50; Need to find a better name for flyspell-prog-mode

[Jim Porter]

On 4/5/2023 6:13 AM, Michael Heerdegen wrote:
> `flyspell-prog-mode' is a variant of `flyspell-mode' for editing
> programs: it limits spell checking to areas of text fontified with
> certain faces (`flyspell-prog-text-faces', normally strings and
> comments).  The intention is obviously to skip keywords and tags that
> are used by the programming language itself.

For what it's worth, when I started using flyspell-mode last year and 
subsequently discovered flyspell-prog-mode, I immediately understood 
what its intent was from the name. So from my perspective, it's actually 
a very good name. In particular, I never got the sense that it was a 
major mode or that it was *directly* tied to prog-mode; only that 
flyspell-prog-mode is most useful for programming-like modes (which are 
usually, but not always, derived from prog-mode).

It's possible there's a better name, but is the name really the main 
problem for discoverability? As far as discoverability goes, I believe I 
found out about flyspell-prog-mode via flyspell-mode's docstring:

> This mode is geared toward text modes.  In buffers that contain
> code, ‘flyspell-prog-mode’ is usually a better choice.

If there are still discoverability issues, then I think we should try to 
provide appropriate keywords in manuals, etc so that it's easier to find 
this. The problem of undiscoverable/misleading/opaque names in Emacs 
comes up fairly regularly (e.g. with Eglot), and while clear naming is 
helpful, I think it would be more helpful to make it easier for users to 
search for packages, modes, etc using whatever keywords make sense to 
them. Then discoverability is more about ensuring that we specify an 
appropriate set of keywords.