From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Code cleanup -- inconsistent "width" and "height" etc.
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 04:51:14 -0400
Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org
Message-ID: <E193uFe-00046d-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <5xhe97dsr3.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk><5xptnuihqd.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1050051700 5207 80.91.224.249 (11 Apr 2003 09:01:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:01:40 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: miles@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 11 11:01:31 2003
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 193uPb-0001LC-00
	for <emacs-devel@main.gmane.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:01:31 +0200
Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 193uUz-00029L-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:07:05 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13)
	id 193uHM-0006vm-03
	for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 04:53:00 -0400
Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13)
	id 193uFx-00068A-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 04:51:33 -0400
Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13)
	id 193uFh-0005ei-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 04:51:18 -0400
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13)
	id 193uFe-0005TL-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 04:51:14 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10)
	id 193uFe-00046d-00; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 04:51:14 -0400
Original-To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)
In-reply-to: <5xptnuihqd.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> (storm@cua.dk)
Original-cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Emacs development discussions. <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:13148
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13148

    For example, we would use FRAME_COLS and FRAME_LINES rather than the
    current FRAME_WIDTH and FRAME_HEIGHT.

I like this idea.  The names are short and clear.

Handa wrote:

    But, as I wrote, Lisp APIs are already using
    ...-width/...-height for columns and lines.

We don't HAVE to use the same convention internally as we do for Lisp.
It is true that it is better if the convention is the same, but that
has to be weighed against other advantages and disadvantages.