RE: master 95e8c7d 1/2: ; Fix typos

[Drew Adams]

> But it is true that it would be preferable if the code matched the
> documentation.  In the interest of consistency we are better off
> sticking to one spelling.  Note that we already had around 40 other
> instances of "parsable" in our source tree.
> 
> This is obviously extremely minor.  Personally I'd rather fix the names
> of those two macros to match the docstring.  IIUC, an obsolete function
> alias would do the job.

My 2 cents: Unless the code you want to rename
is brand new - never been released as part of
an Emacs release, please don't change the names
in the code.  And when you refer to those code
names in the doc, use the actual code names.

If you otherwise use the _word_ then use whatever you want.

This kind of gratuitous name change is anathema.
It's all the more silly since both names are
acceptable as English words.

Code names should be understandable.  Other
things being equal they should also be relatively
consistent.  But they need not correspond exactly,
in general, with natural language words.

The main point is not to break existing code.
Especially gratuitously.