thread-alive-p ? Why not thread-live-p?

thread-alive-p ? Why not thread-live-p?

[Live System User]

Hi,

        Admittedly a minor nit, but why use the name `thread-alive-p'
        instead of `thread-live-p' in the
        scratch/list-thread branch?

        This would make it similiar to `process-live-p',
        `buffer-live-p', `window-live-p' etc for threead
        objects.

        Thanks.

Re: thread-alive-p ? Why not thread-live-p?

[Stefan Monnier]

>         Admittedly a minor nit, but why use the name `thread-alive-p'
>         instead of `thread-live-p' in the
>         scratch/list-thread branch?

To keep the coder on their toes,


        Stefan

Re: thread-alive-p ? Why not thread-live-p?

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> ">" == Live System User <nyc4bos@aol.com> writes:

>>         Admittedly a minor nit, but why use the name `thread-alive-p'
>>         instead of `thread-live-p' in the
>>         scratch/list-thread branch?

Just thoughtlessness on my part, back when.

>>         This would make it similiar to `process-live-p',
>>         `buffer-live-p', `window-live-p' etc for threead
>>         objects.

There are a few *-alive-p functions as well.  I think if I had thought
of it I would have chosen thread-live-p though.

I tend to doubt it is worth switching, but I wouldn't oppose it.

Tom

Re: thread-alive-p ? Why not thread-live-p?

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> "TT" == Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> writes:

TT> There are a few *-alive-p functions as well. I think if I had thought of
TT> it I would have chosen thread-live-p though.

I do prefer live-p, but I'm not bothered-p either.

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

Re: thread-alive-p ? Why not thread-live-p?

[Michael Albinus]

"John Wiegley" <johnw@gnu.org> writes:

>>>>>> "TT" == Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> writes:
>
> TT> There are a few *-alive-p functions as well. I think if I had thought of
> TT> it I would have chosen thread-live-p though.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(let ((completion-regexp-list '("-alive-p$"))) (all-completions "" obarray))
=> ("gnus-alive-p" "thread-alive-p" "mm-keep-viewer-alive-p")

(let ((completion-regexp-list '("-live-p$"))) (all-completions "" obarray))
=> ("process-live-p" "window-live-p" "ediff-buffer-live-p" "gnus-buffer-live-p" "erc-server-buffer-live-p" "frame-live-p" "buffer-live-p" "dframe-live-p" "terminal-live-p")
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

> I do prefer live-p, but I'm not bothered-p either.

If nobody objects next days, I'll change the name. It's not too late, I
believe.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: thread-alive-p ? Why not thread-live-p?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>
> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 12:06:02 +0200
> 
> > I do prefer live-p, but I'm not bothered-p either.
> 
> If nobody objects next days, I'll change the name. It's not too late, I
> believe.

It's fine with me to rename, but since we already released Emacs 26.1
with this API, we will need to leave behind an obsolete alias.

Thanks.

Re: thread-alive-p ? Why not thread-live-p?

[Michael Albinus]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> > I do prefer live-p, but I'm not bothered-p either.
>> 
>> If nobody objects next days, I'll change the name. It's not too late, I
>> believe.
>
> It's fine with me to rename, but since we already released Emacs 26.1
> with this API, we will need to leave behind an obsolete alias.

Will do. For the emacs-26 branch, or master? I'd prefer the former, in
order not to see too much code in the wild with the obsolete name.

> Thanks.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: thread-alive-p ? Why not thread-live-p?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>
> Cc: nyc4bos@aol.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 15:37:14 +0200
> 
> > It's fine with me to rename, but since we already released Emacs 26.1
> > with this API, we will need to leave behind an obsolete alias.
> 
> Will do. For the emacs-26 branch, or master? I'd prefer the former, in
> order not to see too much code in the wild with the obsolete name.

It could go to emacs-26, but there we should not announce
thread-alive-p obsolete yet, it should be obsoleted on master, I
think.

Re: thread-alive-p ? Why not thread-live-p?

[Michael Albinus]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> It could go to emacs-26, but there we should not announce
> thread-alive-p obsolete yet, it should be obsoleted on master, I
> think.

Done.

Best regards, Michael.