Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent)

[Henrik Enberg]

Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 08:38:10PM +0100, Henrik Enberg wrote:
>> I think it's pretty natural to end them with -face.  And take something
>> like `font-lock-keyword-face', what would be a better name?
>
> `font-lock-keyword'
>
> [e.g., (setq font-lock-keyword-face 'font-lock-keyword) ]
>
>> the current name is self-documenting.
>
> If we ended every variable in `-variable', they would all be "self
> documenting" too.

No, that would just be silly.  There is no need to to over-consistent.

> The question is whether this is useful property, more than it is an annoying
> one (and I think you'll agree that calling every variable foo-variable would
> be really annoying!).
>
> When I look at source code [I just did this using grep] that refers to
> constant face names, which is the main place where this matters, I see
> things like:
>
>    (defface foo-face ...)

[...]

>    (cons 'foo-face list-of-faces)
>
> Note that all these cases, the `-face' in the face name doesn't help at all,
> because the variable/function/macro/property two which the constant face is
> being assigned/passed almost always _explicitly_ makes it clear that a face
> is being operated upon.  In the `-face' suffix seems redundant, because it's
> entirely obvious -- even to someone who doesn't understand what the source
> code does! -- that it's a face being manipulated.

It _is_ pretty redundant when writing code, but from a user perspective,
it make them easier to find,  I think a typical user is more likely to
use ``C-h v'' and apropos than to grep the source code.

-- 
Booting... /vmemacs.el