Re: naming convention for faces?

[Miles Bader]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> > > I don't think it's redundant: it's useful for searching with `apropos',
> > > and, in general, tells volumes about the variable's purpose.
> > 
> > Well that's the thing -- they aren't variables.
> 
> ??? Does ELisp have something beyond functions and variables?

Yes, it has faces.  They are in a different namespace than both
variables and functions.

> If not, anything that's not a function is a variable.
> 
> > It's like calling all variables `foo-variable'.
> 
> I don't think the analogy is accurate: Lisp already knows about the 
> difference between functions and variables, so the user can differentiate 
> between them by using different commands (apropos-command vs 
> apropos-variable, etc.).

Consider, how do you describe a face?  `describe-face'.  If you do
describe-variable on, for instance, `default', it won't let you because
there isn't such a variable.  There is such a face though, and you can
describe it with describe-face.

-Miles