Re: thread-alive-p ? Why not thread-live-p?

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> ">" == Live System User <address@hidden> writes:

>>         Admittedly a minor nit, but why use the name `thread-alive-p'
>>         instead of `thread-live-p' in the
>>         scratch/list-thread branch?

Just thoughtlessness on my part, back when.

>>         This would make it similiar to `process-live-p',
>>         `buffer-live-p', `window-live-p' etc for threead
>>         objects.

There are a few *-alive-p functions as well.  I think if I had thought
of it I would have chosen thread-live-p though.

I tend to doubt it is worth switching, but I wouldn't oppose it.

Tom