From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:19:38 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87slw4pro6.fsf@jurta.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1126913585 30944 80.91.229.2 (16 Sep 2005 23:33:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:33:05 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 17 01:33:04 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGPhI-000844-Fb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:32:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGPhH-0006ZP-NT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:32:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EGPg2-0006YN-6s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:31:30 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EGPfy-0006Xg-2h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:31:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGPfx-0006Xd-IN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:31:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [141.146.126.229] (helo=agminet02.oracle.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1EGPUc-0000LJ-O6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:19:42 -0400 Original-Received: from rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.49]) by agminet02.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id j8GNJmFk031515 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:19:48 -0500 Original-Received: from rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id j8GNJeoF015305 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:19:40 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap (dhcp-amer-whq-csvpn-gw3-141-144-80-116.vpn.oracle.com [141.144.80.116]) by rgmsgw300.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with SMTP id j8GNJe0N015300 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:19:40 -0600 Original-To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <87slw4pro6.fsf@jurta.org> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:43020 Archived-At: > I think it hasn't been decided whether to allow more than one default value > in the upcoming release. IIUC, Richard decided to allow more than one default value, since this is a quite trivial change. I didn't realize this was already decided. Are these default values accessed via repeated M-n? Is there any limit (or guideline) on their number? > In that case, "defaults" is misleading (that is, incorrect). > I suggest "default-value", which is clearer, anyway. > Similarly, I think "initial-value" or "init-value" is clearer than > "initial". I think neither "initial-value" nor "default-value" make the semantics of arguments clearer than "initial" or "default". To understand the difference between them, programmers still should consult the documentation. "default" is OK, if there is no problem with the C name conflict. "default" is commonly abused as shorthand for "default value", at least in software. (People speak of "the default".) Yes, to understand the difference between an initial value and a default value, the doc must be consulted, and that is true _regardless_ of the names we use. That was not my point about "initial", however - I didn't claim that "initial-value" would make that distinction clear. My point was that "init" or "initial" does not by itself indicate an initial _value_. There are other things that might be initial in this context. "initial" is not clear in the same way that "default" is clear. People don't say, "What is the "initial?" All of the following are clearer than "initial": "init-val", "init-value", "initial-value". > "Init" clearly stands for "initial", but the "value" part is > important - "initial" by itself doesn't mean much (initial what?). Perhaps simply "init" would be good: it's short, and since it is not a real word, it doesn't require a noun like "-value". I don't get your response here. It's not because "initial" is a real word that it requires a noun - it's because it's just an adjective. I granted that "init" abbreviates "initial" adequately. The question is, initial what? The "value" part is important. "init-val" takes only 2 more characters than "initial", if that's the worry.