[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent
From: |
Mark D. Baushke |
Subject: |
Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Oct 2002 02:13:44 -0700 |
Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:
> "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> writes:
> > Don't take checkdoc too literally. I for one strongly dislike the
> > idea of using -flag postfixes, as I've already mentioned somewhere,
> > among other things because it's not a widely followed convention
> > and because many boolean variables turn into 3-way (or more) variables
> > over time.
>
> I've never heard of this `convention,' and indeed, it sounds kind of
> dumb -- a `-flag' suffix doesn't really add any useful information
> (if you know the _meaning_ of a variable, then you already know whether
> it's boolean or not, and if you don't know the meaning, well, then it
> hardly helps you to know that it's boolean!).
>
> Why on earth does checkdoc try to enforce this? Can we take that out?
I would certainly not complain about a configuration option to turn off
the `-flag' suffix convention.
However, at least a few of the variables that are going to be renamed
have what I consider to be a worse problem. They end with a `-p' suffix
which I really dislike for variables to have.
User defcustom variables:
mh-bury-show-buffer -> mh-bury-show-buffer-flag
mh-clean-message-header -> mh-clean-message-header-flag
mh-do-not-confirm -> mh-do-not-confirm-flag
mh-insert-x-mailer-p -> mh-insert-x-mailer-flag
mh-recenter-summary-p -> mh-recenter-summary-flag
mh-reply-show-message-p -> mh-reply-show-message-flag
mh-show-use-goto-addr -> mh-show-use-goto-addr-flag
Internal variables to be renamed:
save-modification-flag-p -> mh-save-modification-flag
mh-page-to-next-msg-p -> mh-page-to-next-msg-flag
mh-mhn-compose-insert-p -> mh-mhn-compose-insert-flag
mh-nmh-p -> mh-nmh-flag
> [I have my own agendas of course -- I'd like to make checkdoc complain
> if people use a `-p' suffix for variables, or a `-face' suffix for
> faces...]
I would support such changes to checkdoc for the `-p' suffix.
Would you care to share the argument for the `-face' suffix?
I suspect that mh-e has some of these and if we are going to do
a renaming, we may as well try to accommodate all such changes
now rather than later.
Feel free to add comments to the SourceForge.Net bugid #627015
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=113357&aid=627015&group_id=13357
on this topic.
Thanks,
-- Mark
- mh-e 6.2 imminent, Bill Wohler, 2002/10/21
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/21
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/21
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Bill Wohler, 2002/10/23
- checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Stefan Monnier, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Miles Bader, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Miles Bader, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Richard Stallman, 2002/10/25
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/25
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Richard Stallman, 2002/10/26
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/26