[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:59:33 -0700 |
I propose to standardize on the following arguments names:
prompt
initial
history
defaults
inherit-im
must-match
collection
no-space
directory
Most of these names are shorter than current names, but still
intelligible.
Since `default' is a keyword in C, `defaults' is a good replacement.
`inherit-im' is twice shorter than `inherit-input-method' and the `IM'
abbreviation is already mentioned in the Emacs manual.
I think it hasn't been decided whether to allow more than one default value
in the upcoming release. In that case, "defaults" is misleading (that is,
incorrect). I suggest "default-value", which is clearer, anyway.
Similarly, I think "initial-value" or "init-value" is clearer than
"initial". "Init" clearly stands for "initial", but the "value" part is
important - "initial" by itself doesn't mean much (initial what?).
BTW, must the C parameter (implementation) name be identical to the Lisp
name? It seems a bit limiting that we cannot pick a name ("default"), simply
because C already has "default" as a reserved word. That suggests to me that
there might be too tight a coupling between the C language and its use in
coding Emacs primitives. If it is just a question of a coding convention
that might be stretched or even violated, I would think that ease in
understanding by _users_ would trump respect of the coding convention - an
appropriate comment could clarify any non-standard name used in the
implementation code.
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, (continued)
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Juri Linkov, 2005/09/16
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/09/16
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Juri Linkov, 2005/09/16
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/09/17
- RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Drew Adams, 2005/09/17
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/09/17
- RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Drew Adams, 2005/09/19
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/09/19
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/09/18
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Kim F. Storm, 2005/09/19
- RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Juanma Barranquero, 2005/09/16
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Juri Linkov, 2005/09/16
- RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Drew Adams, 2005/09/16
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Juri Linkov, 2005/09/16
- RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Drew Adams, 2005/09/16