bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name

bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name

[Stefan Kangas]

Severity: minor

This is the docstring of `image-transform-original'.

    (image-transform-original)

    Display the current image with the original (actual) size and
    rotation.

From reading this it is clear what it does, but the command name makes
it sound like it will transform the original image.

These are the commands under the "s" key in image-mode:

    s 0             image-transform-reset
    s b             image-transform-fit-both
    s f             image-mode-fit-frame
    s h             image-transform-fit-to-height
    s m             image-transform-set-smoothing
    s o             image-transform-original
    s r             image-transform-set-rotation
    s s             image-transform-set-scale
    s w             image-transform-fit-to-width

Perhaps this would be less confusing if these commands were named
`image-display-*' instead of `image-transform-*'?

    s 0             image-display-reset-size
    s b             image-display-fit-both
    s f             image-mode-fit-frame
    s h             image-display-fit-to-height
    s m             image-display-set-smoothing
    s o             image-display-original-size
    s r             image-display-set-rotation
    s s             image-display-set-scale
    s w             image-display-fit-to-width

Doesn't that make more sense?

bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se> writes:

> Perhaps this would be less confusing if these commands were named
> `image-display-*' instead of `image-transform-*'?
>
>     s 0             image-display-reset-size
>     s b             image-display-fit-both
>     s f             image-mode-fit-frame
>     s h             image-display-fit-to-height
>     s m             image-display-set-smoothing
>     s o             image-display-original-size
>     s r             image-display-set-rotation
>     s s             image-display-set-scale
>     s w             image-display-fit-to-width
>
> Doesn't that make more sense?

It makes sense to me -- I've been confused by these commands myself.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name

[Stefan Kangas]

Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> writes:

> image-transform-* commands are modifying the values of
> image-transform-* variables.
> Would you propose to rename variables as well?

I didn't think about that, as the commands are what the user will see.
Maybe we should.  Do you think it would be a good idea?

bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name

[Juri Linkov]

>> image-transform-* commands are modifying the values of
>> image-transform-* variables.
>> Would you propose to rename variables as well?
>
> I didn't think about that, as the commands are what the user will see.
> Maybe we should.  Do you think it would be a good idea?

At least, currently there is consistency in naming of
image-transform-* functions and variables.  Whether
selecting such a prefix was a good choice is another question.

But if you see a problem only in the name of image-transform-original,
then it could be renamed to image-transform-set-original or maybe
better to image-transform-reset-to-original, i.e. to something more
descriptive, while keeping the existing name prefix.

PS: renaming to image-transform-reset-to-original will also require
renaming image-transform-reset to image-transform-reset-to-initial.

bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name

[Stefan Kangas]

Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> writes:

>>> image-transform-* commands are modifying the values of
>>> image-transform-* variables.
>>> Would you propose to rename variables as well?
>>
>> I didn't think about that, as the commands are what the user will see.
>> Maybe we should.  Do you think it would be a good idea?
>
> At least, currently there is consistency in naming of
> image-transform-* functions and variables.

That's true.

> But if you see a problem only in the name of image-transform-original,
> then it could be renamed to image-transform-set-original or maybe
> better to image-transform-reset-to-original, i.e. to something more
> descriptive, while keeping the existing name prefix.

I see a problem with all of them, especially in combination with
`image-save'.  :-(

But the most confusing one by far is `image-transform-original', indeed.

bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name

[Stefan Kangas]

close 51451 29.1
thanks

Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> writes:

>>> image-transform-* commands are modifying the values of
>>> image-transform-* variables.
>>> Would you propose to rename variables as well?
>>
>> I didn't think about that, as the commands are what the user will see.
>> Maybe we should.  Do you think it would be a good idea?
>
> At least, currently there is consistency in naming of
> image-transform-* functions and variables.  Whether
> selecting such a prefix was a good choice is another question.
>
> But if you see a problem only in the name of image-transform-original,
> then it could be renamed to image-transform-set-original or maybe
> better to image-transform-reset-to-original, i.e. to something more
> descriptive, while keeping the existing name prefix.
>
> PS: renaming to image-transform-reset-to-original will also require
> renaming image-transform-reset to image-transform-reset-to-initial.

Thanks.  I've now changed this as you suggest (commit 37fe0cd358).

bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name

[Juri Linkov]

>> PS: renaming to image-transform-reset-to-original will also require
>> renaming image-transform-reset to image-transform-reset-to-initial.
>
> Thanks.  I've now changed this as you suggest (commit 37fe0cd358).

Thanks, I noticed that the manual mentions only
'image-transform-reset-to-initial'.  Shouldn't it also mention
'image-transform-reset-to-original' briefly, after a comma, e.g.:

  To reset all transformations to the initial state, use
  ‘image-transform-reset-to-initial’ bound to ‘s 0’, and to the
  original state, use ‘image-transform-reset-to-original’ bound to ‘s o’.

bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name

[Stefan Kangas]

Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> writes:

>  I noticed that the manual mentions only
> 'image-transform-reset-to-initial'.  Shouldn't it also mention
> 'image-transform-reset-to-original' briefly, after a comma, e.g.:
>
>   To reset all transformations to the initial state, use
>   ‘image-transform-reset-to-initial’ bound to ‘s 0’, and to the
>   original state, use ‘image-transform-reset-to-original’ bound to ‘s o’.

OK, now done (commit 8c73ed0ec3).