Re: "Non-nil means" versus "On means" in docstrings

[Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>]

"Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     I would therefore propose, for the sake of usability, to modify
>     checkdoc-this-string-valid-engine so that it accepts "On means" as well
>     as "Non-nil means".
>
> This is a real issue, but it opens a can of worms.  Your solution
> makes it easier to understand in Custom and harder to understand at
> the Lisp level.  I don't think that is a good solution; that is not
> the way to go.
>
> How to make things clear at both levels, as best as possible with
> reasonable amounts of effort, calls for a lot of thought.  It should
> not be rushed.  This is something people can think about now, but
> think in terms of doing it after the release.

That sounds prudent. I'll stick with "non-nil means" in MH-E for now.

-- 
Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>  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.