[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings

From: Richard M. Stallman
Subject: Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:59:29 -0400

      Below is a list of arguments with similar names
    of minibuffer functions collected from docstrings and descriptions
    in the Emacs Lisp Reference:

      prompt, prompt-string
      initial, initial-contents, initial-input
      history, hist
      def, defalt, default, default-value, default-filename, default-dirname
      require-match, mustmatch, must-match, existing
      collection, table, alist
      nospace, hide-spaces
      directory, dir

It is not necessarily desirable to make them uniform.  That may or may
not be an improvement, depending on the details.  Thus, the changes
you propose may be good in some cases, but not necessarily in each

So I do not want to make these decisions in a blanket fashion.
How about if you pick one of these groups of alternatives,
make the changes to standardize that group, and send the diff here
to be looked at?


THat is not an inconsistency, just long.

      collection, table, alist

I don't like "collection" very much.

      nospace, hide-spaces

"nospace" and "hide-spaces" suggest different meanings.  I don't know
how they are actually used, but it is possible that it is better to
keep them both.

      history, hist

The only possible reason not to change "hist" to "history"
is to save space.

      require-match, mustmatch, must-match, existing

This seems like a good case to standardize, but it is possible
that there is a reason to use "existing" in a specific case.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]