* bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name
@ 2021-10-28 0:31 Stefan Kangas
2021-10-29 13:14 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
[not found] ` <87ilxdnsbu.fsf@mail.linkov.net>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Kangas @ 2021-10-28 0:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 51451
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?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name
2021-10-28 0:31 bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name Stefan Kangas
@ 2021-10-29 13:14 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
[not found] ` <87ilxdnsbu.fsf@mail.linkov.net>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Lars Ingebrigtsen @ 2021-10-29 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Kangas; +Cc: 51451
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread[parent not found: <87ilxdnsbu.fsf@mail.linkov.net>]
* bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name
[not found] ` <87ilxdnsbu.fsf@mail.linkov.net>
@ 2021-10-31 20:24 ` Stefan Kangas
2021-11-03 18:48 ` Juri Linkov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Kangas @ 2021-10-31 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juri Linkov; +Cc: 51451
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?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name
2021-10-31 20:24 ` Stefan Kangas
@ 2021-11-03 18:48 ` Juri Linkov
2021-11-03 20:16 ` Stefan Kangas
2022-09-14 13:52 ` Stefan Kangas
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Juri Linkov @ 2021-11-03 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Kangas; +Cc: 51451
>> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name
2021-11-03 18:48 ` Juri Linkov
@ 2021-11-03 20:16 ` Stefan Kangas
2022-09-14 13:52 ` Stefan Kangas
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Kangas @ 2021-11-03 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juri Linkov; +Cc: 51451
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name
2021-11-03 18:48 ` Juri Linkov
2021-11-03 20:16 ` Stefan Kangas
@ 2022-09-14 13:52 ` Stefan Kangas
2022-09-14 19:11 ` Juri Linkov
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Kangas @ 2022-09-14 13:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juri Linkov; +Cc: 51451
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).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name
2022-09-14 13:52 ` Stefan Kangas
@ 2022-09-14 19:11 ` Juri Linkov
2022-09-14 23:06 ` Stefan Kangas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Juri Linkov @ 2022-09-14 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Kangas; +Cc: 51451
>> 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’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name
2022-09-14 19:11 ` Juri Linkov
@ 2022-09-14 23:06 ` Stefan Kangas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Kangas @ 2022-09-14 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juri Linkov; +Cc: 51451
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).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-09-14 23:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-10-28 0:31 bug#51451: image-transform-original has a misleading name Stefan Kangas
2021-10-29 13:14 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
[not found] ` <87ilxdnsbu.fsf@mail.linkov.net>
2021-10-31 20:24 ` Stefan Kangas
2021-11-03 18:48 ` Juri Linkov
2021-11-03 20:16 ` Stefan Kangas
2022-09-14 13:52 ` Stefan Kangas
2022-09-14 19:11 ` Juri Linkov
2022-09-14 23:06 ` Stefan Kangas
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).