[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent)
From: |
Kim F. Storm |
Subject: |
Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent) |
Date: |
24 Oct 2002 13:13:11 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:
re. removing check for -flag, count me in!
>
> > [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.
Well, I agree with Miles that formally, the -face suffix is redundant
since faces have their own namespace.
However, when you want to customize a group, I think having the face
suffix makes a big difference to the user.
E.g. try customize-group on ido; there you will see the following
headings to customize ido's faces:
Ido First Match Face: (sample) [Show Face]
Ido Only Match Face: (sample) [Show Face]
Ido Subdir Face: (sample) [Show Face]
Ido Indicator Face: (sample) [Show Face]
which I definitely prefer to
Ido First Match: (sample) [Show Face]
Ido Only Match: (sample) [Show Face]
Ido Subdir: (sample) [Show Face]
Ido Indicator: (sample) [Show Face]
Also, for code maintenance, I personally think having the -face suffix
on faces makes the code easier to read!
So in my option -face suffix is preferable, and I would actually
argue in favour of _recommending_ using it (which most lisp
packages seem to do anyway)!
--
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk
- 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 <=
- 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
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/28