Re: silly face function names

[storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)]

Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp> writes:

> storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes:
> > The names are badly chosen (having both 'set-' and '-p' is confusing),
> > but if you read the names like this, it does make sense:
> > 
> >         set-face - FOO-p
> > 
> > I would argue that 'set-' takes precedence over '-p' here...
> 
> I'd argue that you're wrong -- `FOO-p' is not a thing which you can set.
> Faces have an `inverse-video' property, and `face-inverse-video-p' is
> merely the name of the predicate which tests that property.
> 
> Having bogus function names around in emacs-proper just serves to
> confuse people and cause the _next_ generation of bogus function names.

Ok, but since we already have N ways to do this:
        (make-face-FOO face [F])
        (make-face-unFOO face [F])
        (set-face-attribute face F :FOO bool)
        (set-face-FOO-p face bool [F])

So I really don't see _any_ reason to add an N+1'th way to do the same:
        (set-face-FOO face bool [F])

Instead, I'd suggest simply to mark the set-face-FOO-p obsolete, and
change the few existing uses of those functions to use one of the other
alternatives above.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk