From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bill Wohler Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Use of "optional argument" in docstring Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:25:41 -0800 Organization: Newt Software Message-ID: <23512.1133562341@olgas.newt.com> References: <22334.1133559098@olgas.newt.com> <17296.49526.166588.17581@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1133562500 11617 80.91.229.2 (2 Dec 2005 22:28:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 22:28:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 02 23:28:11 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EiJMD-0002lq-JI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 23:26:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EiJMD-0000c8-Ba for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:26:21 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EiJLp-0000L0-3p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:25:57 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EiJLn-0000GK-41 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:25:56 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EiJLm-0000G1-Bj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:25:54 -0500 Original-Received: from [69.93.192.76] (helo=tassie.newt.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EiJLo-0008Ls-Uf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:25:57 -0500 Original-Received: from olgas.newt.com (m110e36d0.tmodns.net [208.54.14.17]) by tassie.newt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623A92D4012; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:25:47 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by olgas.newt.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D755F16FD8; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:25:41 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from olgas.newt.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olgas.newt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1EB216FAD; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:25:41 -0800 (PST) Original-To: Nick Roberts In-Reply-To: Nick Roberts's message of Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:49:42 +1300. <17296.49526.166588.17581@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> X-Mailer: MH-E 7.85+cvs; nmh 1.1; GNU Emacs 22.0.50.1 X-Image-URL: http://www.newt.com/wohler/images/bill-diving.png X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:46911 Archived-At: Nick Roberts wrote: > In all the examples that I looked at optional arguments are explicitly > described as such. Old, or new functions? I see it predominantly in older functions and less so in new functions. > > I also think the documentation often reads better if the number and the > > word "argument" is dropped. For example, in the example above, "If BASE > > is given..." > > Maybe but it would be a lot of work to change now. Yes, of course, but we're not talking about that. I'm asking what one should use for new functions (or functions one is editing). I suspect that the convention of using "optional second argument" comes from a day before Emacs printed the function spec in the *Help* buffer. If that had been the case, that docstring convention would have been imperative. It seems possible that the reason to use "optional second argument" no longer exists. -- Bill Wohler http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian! If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.