Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings

[Juri Linkov]

> So I do not want to make these decisions in a blanket fashion.
> How about if you pick one of these groups of alternatives,
> make the changes to standardize that group, and send the diff here
> to be looked at?

I will send diffs for final reviews when most names will be basically
agreed.

>       collection, table, alist
>
> I don't like "collection" very much.

"collection" is used in the Emacs Lisp Reference Manual for the
functions `try-completion', `all-completions', `test-completion'
and `completing-read'.

Perhaps a better name for this argument is "completions".

>       nospace, hide-spaces
>
> "nospace" and "hide-spaces" suggest different meanings.  I don't know
> how they are actually used, but it is possible that it is better to
> keep them both.

Both argument names are used for the same function `all-completions':
"hide-spaces" is used in the docstring, and "nospace" - in the
Emacs Lisp Reference Manual.

>       history, hist
>
> The only possible reason not to change "hist" to "history"
> is to save space.

If the meaning of "hist" is as clear as "history", then it could
be used consistently in other functions as well.

>       require-match, mustmatch, must-match, existing
>
> This seems like a good case to standardize, but it is possible
> that there is a reason to use "existing" in a specific case.

"existing" is used only in the Emacs Lisp Reference Manual.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/