[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings
|
From: |
Andreas Schwab |
|
Subject: |
Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings |
|
Date: |
Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:02:17 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Juri Linkov <address@hidden> writes:
> Since `default' is a keyword in C, `defaults' is a good replacement.
`default' is special cased: you can spell it `defalt' in the C code and
still get `DEFAULT' in the doc string.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, address@hidden
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
- Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Juanma Barranquero, 2005/09/13
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/09/14
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Juri Linkov, 2005/09/15
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/09/16
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Juri Linkov, 2005/09/16
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/09/17
- RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Drew Adams, 2005/09/17
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/09/17
- RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Drew Adams, 2005/09/19
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/09/19
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/09/18
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Kim F. Storm, 2005/09/19