Re: Renaming non-X x_* procedures in xdisp.c (and elsewhere)

[Alex <agrambot@gmail.com>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:


> I tend to prefer to do it in one go.  The reason is that in the past
> we've seen once or twice someone who made such initial steps towards a
> goal that we considered important, but then didn't follow up with the
> rest, and we were left with a slightly less readable and/or slightly
> less familiar code, and no real gains.  So now I'm less inclined to
> support such partial steps which in themselves have little gains to
> offer.

I see the tendency to prefer so, but I disagree that this would make the
code less readable or meaningfully less familiar.

>> If you're referring to another class of x_* procedures to be renamed,
>> then those can be done in a later commit.
>
> I think I see them all as a single class.  That some of them are used
> through redisplay_interface is not an important distinction, IMO.

I agree that it's not the RIF aspect that's the distinguishing factor; I
should have said "x_* procedures in the same class of x_* procedures as
those in my patch".

IMO renaming involving trivial changes (ones covered by my patch), and
renaming involving branching functionality to different windowing
systems are two distinct classes.

I'll see about making a scratch branch for the other x_* procedures.