[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: naming convention for faces?
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: naming convention for faces? |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:29:01 +0900 (JST) |
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