Re: narrow-to-here-document

[Tak Ota <Takaaki.Ota@am.sony.com>]

26 Jun 2003 16:19:57 +0900: Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp> wrote:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
> > This suggests we should use some other more general term instead.
> > How about "literal"?  Any other suggestions?
> > 
> >     (defun make-indirect-buffer-for-hdoc (&optional change-major-mode)...
> > 
> > I suggest the name edit-literal for that function.
> > We should not rigidly put all relevant entities into the function name.
> 
> I find the name `literal' not clear for the opposite reason -- it seems
> too broad, and literal seems like a work that might have many other
> potential meanings.  Since the crucial point is that it's a literal field
> embedded in a buffer, how about something like `edit-embedded-literal' or
> `edit-literal-field'?

It is a bit pity loosing the name 'here document' since its use is so
popular that any other naming would be an indirect description of
'here document'.  I can imagine such a conversation that:

"What is this embedded literal stuff?"  "That really is a here
document"

I Googled {perl|python|ruby} "here document", and found that the name
was more generically used now than when it was originally coined.

-Tak