[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"Custom-" vs "customize-"
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
"Custom-" vs "customize-" |
Date: |
Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:11:47 -0700 |
There is this comment in cus-edit.el:
;; No commands should have names starting with `custom-' because
;; that interferes with completion. Use `customize-' for commands
;; that the user will run with M-x, and `Custom-' for interactive commands.
Of course "interactive commands" is redundant, and doesn't in any way
distinguish this case from "commands that the user will run with M-x".
Ignoring that, I imagine that what is meant is this:
1. `custom-' is for non-interactive functions (non-commands).
2. `Custom-' is for commands that are bound to key sequences.
3. `customize' is for commands that are not bound to key sequences.
If that's what the convention means, then I don't understand #2 and #3. Why
distinguish names based on whether or not a command is bound?
And even if that were a good idea, the convention is confusing because #1
and #2 are closer than #2 and #3 - why associate (and therefore confuse) #1
and #2?
Unless I'm missing something, I suggest that #2 be eliminated in favor of #3
for all commands. If this breaks old code, then we can create aliases and
deprecate their names.
- "Custom-" vs "customize-",
Drew Adams <=