Re: constant `e'

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Stefan Monnier wrote:

> > Their names are fine, but perhaps they should be interned in a different
> > package (as soon as Emacs Lisp provides a structred namespace for
> > symbols :-)
>
> The closest we have (and there's no change on the horizon, AFAIK) is
> prefixes, which is why I suggested "math-e".


math-e is short and understandable, fits well with a maybe-future 
structured namespace. No one has suggested a shorter name (expect for e 
of course ...). Those who want can easily define e themselves.

I see no reason not to change e to math-e. Except that it may be rather 
hard to find and replace the current uses of e ... ;-)