[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent)
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent) |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Oct 2002 05:28:45 -0400 |
> I've never heard of this `convention,' and indeed, it sounds kind of
> dumb -- a `-flag' suffix doesn't really add any useful information
> (if you know the _meaning_ of a variable, then you already know whether
> it's boolean or not, and if you don't know the meaning, well, then it
> hardly helps you to know that it's boolean!).
It's sadly even mentioned in the elisp doc :-(
work/emacs-0% grep -C flag lispref/tips.texi
@item
If a user option variable records a true-or-false condition, give it a
name that ends in @samp{-flag}.
[...]
Luckily it's rarely folowed.
> Why on earth does checkdoc try to enforce this? Can we take that out?
I'd be happy to.
> [I have my own agendas of course -- I'd like to make checkdoc complain
> if people use a `-p' suffix for variables, or a `-face' suffix for
> faces...]
Agreed for the `-p'. For `-face', I'm still not sure either way.
Stefan
- mh-e 6.2 imminent, Bill Wohler, 2002/10/21
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/21
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/21
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Bill Wohler, 2002/10/23
- checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent),
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Miles Bader, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Miles Bader, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Richard Stallman, 2002/10/25
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/25
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Richard Stallman, 2002/10/26
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/26
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Richard Stallman, 2002/10/28
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Henrik Enberg, 2002/10/28