Re: Inconsistency in meaning of "user options"

[Lennart Borgman]

Drew Adams wrote:

>    That would maybe be good. Perhaps could we use these terms?:
>
>    1) user options
>    2) custom options (to be distinguished from "Custom options" ;-)
>
>    I guess the meaning here is obvious, but just in case: 1 -
>    those can not be set with Custom, 2 - those can be set with custom.
>
> No, the meaning is not obvious, at least in American English. Something that
> is "custom" (e.g. a "custom motorcycle") is something that _has been_
> customized. The term to use for customizable is "customizable", not
> "custom".
>  
Oh thanks, it is a bit hard with a foreign language. I would expect an 
option that had been changed to be called "customized" perhaps, but not 
"custom".

easy-customizable option, e-customizable option? (it is more a joke...), 
custom-customizable option - too long, custom-enabled option, 
custom-setable option, defcustom option - we actually use this sometimes 
and I like it. But can the normal user understand that term? 
custom-enabled seems better to me then, but I do not know what that 
alludes to for you native english speakers.

> It's also not clear to me what you gain by changing "Custom" to "custom", if
> your meaning of "custom" is "Custom" (can be set with Custom). My point was
> precisely to find some term that is different from "custom", to avoid
> confusion.
It was just a joke. I suppose "Custom option" would mean one of those 
that you use to change the behaviour of Custom with.