[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent |
Date: |
24 Oct 2002 17:21:49 +0900 |
"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:
> Don't take checkdoc too literally. I for one strongly dislike the
> idea of using -flag postfixes, as I've already mentioned somewhere,
> among other things because it's not a widely followed convention
> and because many boolean variables turn into 3-way (or more) variables
> over time.
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!).
Why on earth does checkdoc try to enforce this? Can we take that out?
[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...]
-Miles
--
`Life is a boundless sea of bitterness'
- 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, 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), 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