[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs -Q not documented
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: emacs -Q not documented |
Date: |
Sun, 3 Apr 2005 07:17:21 +0900 |
On Apr 2, 2005 8:02 PM, Nick Roberts <address@hidden> wrote:
> I don't think these are explanatory.
>
> If we can't think of a suitable name why should we add one?
Well obviously if we can't think of a good name, we shouldn't add a
bad one :-), but long option names, if well-chosen, are often _much_
easier to remember if you only use the option very occasionally...
So it's worth at least a bit of effort to come up with one. I think
it needn't be _completely_ self-explanatory, as long as it's easy to
remember, and "makes sense" after reading the options documentation or
--help output. Something like `--vanilla' is probably not going to
indicate to a completely naive user what's going on, but it's almost
certainly meaningful enough[*] to jog the memory of someone who has
read the documentation in the past (whereas -Q is more iffy).
How about `--default-settings' (which could be abbreviated
`--default'; perhaps it ought to also accept the plural of that,
`--defaults', without actually putting it in the option help)?
[*] For a native english speaker -- this is the big problem with
`--vanilla' I think.
-Miles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
Re: emacs -Q not documented, Richard Stallman, 2005/04/04