[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: image-transform.el and image-mode.el rewrite

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: image-transform.el and image-mode.el rewrite
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:56:48 +0200

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 23:19:17 -0500
> Cc: Michael Heerdegen <address@hidden>, Glenn Morris <address@hidden>,
>       address@hidden
> > With the exception of `image-mode-fit-frame` all renames either added or
> > removed -mode- from the name. The rationale is very simple. Functions
> > that operate on images and are meaningful outside of `image-mode` don't
> > have -mode- in the name.
> Makes sense.

Now _I_ am confused.  I thought the "image-mode-" prefix was for
namespace reasons, because the symbols are defined in a package named
"image-mode".  I thought this was our rule: to request such prefixes
based on the package name.

But now you seem to say that this rule is bendable under some
(unspecified) conditions?  Please help me understand what are those
conditions, and what exactly are the rules.

reply via email to

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