RE: Rename `mini-' options

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> For better or worse, Emacs traditionally distinguishes "the 
> minibuffer" from "the echo area", and resize-mini-windows
> applies to both.  So a name which captures this subtlety
> is arguably better than one which lies
> a bit for the sake of convenient document searching.

And the name `resize-mini-windows' captures this subtlety just how? Is it
because it cleverly doesn't mention _either_ the minibuffer or the echo area?
That's supposed to help somehow?

You heard it from user Deniz: "Unless I had read your post I never would have
guessed `resize-mini-windows' deals with the minibuffer at all." Case closed.
(Or it should be.) Never would have guessed at all! Even with the name looking
us in the face - let alone the problem of finding that name in the first place.

As I said, use something like `minibuffer-echo-area-resize', if you're concerned
about "capturing the subtlety" that this option applies to both. I have no
problem with that. There's no need to "lie a bit".

Finding options and functions by name is important, and that is not just about
searching the doc. This is why `apropos' works as well as it does - conventional
naming.

> The variable in question _is_ existing practice -- it was introduced
> almost a decade ago, in Emacs 21.

There are lots of things introduced a while ago that could still merit
improvement.

The more important point is that this is an _exception_ to the rest of the
"existing practice". No where else does `mini-' occur. And it remains
unexplained, undocumented.

This is just a bug, no matter how long ago it was introduced. And in the grand
scheme of Emacs terminology, Emacs 21 is a relative newcomer. The terminology of
`minibuffer' and `echo area' have been with us since Day 1.

I apologize for not catching this bug sooner. (I don't use such resizing, myself
- I  use a standalone minibuffer frame, with my own resizing code for that.)