[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent)
From: |
Henrik Enberg |
Subject: |
Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent) |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:07:45 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.3.50 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) |
Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 08:38:10PM +0100, Henrik Enberg wrote:
>> I think it's pretty natural to end them with -face. And take something
>> like `font-lock-keyword-face', what would be a better name?
>
> `font-lock-keyword'
>
> [e.g., (setq font-lock-keyword-face 'font-lock-keyword) ]
>
>> the current name is self-documenting.
>
> If we ended every variable in `-variable', they would all be "self
> documenting" too.
No, that would just be silly. There is no need to to over-consistent.
> The question is whether this is useful property, more than it is an annoying
> one (and I think you'll agree that calling every variable foo-variable would
> be really annoying!).
>
> When I look at source code [I just did this using grep] that refers to
> constant face names, which is the main place where this matters, I see
> things like:
>
> (defface foo-face ...)
[...]
> (cons 'foo-face list-of-faces)
>
> Note that all these cases, the `-face' in the face name doesn't help at all,
> because the variable/function/macro/property two which the constant face is
> being assigned/passed almost always _explicitly_ makes it clear that a face
> is being operated upon. In the `-face' suffix seems redundant, because it's
> entirely obvious -- even to someone who doesn't understand what the source
> code does! -- that it's a face being manipulated.
It _is_ pretty redundant when writing code, but from a user perspective,
it make them easier to find, I think a typical user is more likely to
use ``C-h v'' and apropos than to grep the source code.
--
Booting... /vmemacs.el
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), (continued)
- 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
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/28
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Miles Bader, 2002/10/28
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Richard Stallman, 2002/10/29
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Miles Bader, 2002/10/28
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/28
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Miles Bader, 2002/10/28
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/28
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent),
Henrik Enberg <=
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Stefan Monnier, 2002/10/29
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Richard Stallman, 2002/10/29
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Miles Bader, 2002/10/29
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/25
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Miles Bader, 2002/10/25
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/26
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Francesco Potorti`, 2002/10/29
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Peter S Galbraith, 2002/10/29
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/30
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Miles Bader, 2002/10/29