Re: emacs -Q not documented

[Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com>]

On Apr 2, 2005 8:02 PM, Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz> wrote:
> I don't think these are explanatory.
> 
> If we can't think of a suitable name why should we add one?

Well obviously if we can't think of a good name, we shouldn't add a
bad one :-), but long option names, if well-chosen, are often _much_
easier to remember if you only use the option very occasionally...

So it's worth at least a bit of effort to come up with one.  I think
it needn't be _completely_ self-explanatory, as long as it's easy to
remember, and "makes sense" after reading the options documentation or
--help output.  Something like `--vanilla' is probably not going to
indicate to a completely naive user what's going on, but it's almost
certainly meaningful enough[*] to jog the memory of someone who has
read the documentation in the past (whereas -Q is more iffy).

How about `--default-settings' (which could be abbreviated
`--default'; perhaps it ought to also accept the plural of that,
`--defaults', without actually putting it in the option help)?

[*] For a native english speaker -- this is the big problem with
`--vanilla' I think.

-Miles
-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.