From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent) Date: 24 Oct 2002 13:13:11 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <5x65vsozso.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <200210210726.g9L7QI1l014171@gbr.newt.com> <200210231948.g9NJmdBG015635@gbr.newt.com> <200210240725.g9O7PKI11467@rum.cs.yale.edu> <200210240928.g9O9Sjs12808@rum.cs.yale.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035454575 25236 80.91.224.249 (24 Oct 2002 10:16:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:16:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Miles Bader , Bill Wohler , emacs-devel@gnu.org, mh-e-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 184f2D-0006Yt-00 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:16:13 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 184f4L-0001Du-00 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:18:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 184f0G-0000Mn-00; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 06:14:12 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 184ezA-0007lw-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 06:13:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 184ez8-0007lb-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 06:13:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 184ez8-0007kL-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 06:13:02 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (kfs2.local.filanet.dk [192.168.1.182]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 220CA7C017; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:13:01 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: "Stefan Monnier" In-Reply-To: <200210240928.g9O9Sjs12808@rum.cs.yale.edu> Original-Lines: 47 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:8730 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:8730 "Stefan Monnier" writes: re. removing check for -flag, count me in! > > > [I have my own agendas of course -- I'd like to make checkdoc complain > > if people use a `-p' suffix for variables, or a `-face' suffix for > > faces...] > > Agreed for the `-p'. For `-face', I'm still not sure either way. Well, I agree with Miles that formally, the -face suffix is redundant since faces have their own namespace. However, when you want to customize a group, I think having the face suffix makes a big difference to the user. E.g. try customize-group on ido; there you will see the following headings to customize ido's faces: Ido First Match Face: (sample) [Show Face] Ido Only Match Face: (sample) [Show Face] Ido Subdir Face: (sample) [Show Face] Ido Indicator Face: (sample) [Show Face] which I definitely prefer to Ido First Match: (sample) [Show Face] Ido Only Match: (sample) [Show Face] Ido Subdir: (sample) [Show Face] Ido Indicator: (sample) [Show Face] Also, for code maintenance, I personally think having the -face suffix on faces makes the code easier to read! So in my option -face suffix is preferable, and I would actually argue in favour of _recommending_ using it (which most lisp packages seem to do anyway)! -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk