Re: Rename `mini-' options

[Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
> But that is not the case here. The doc string talks only about resizing
> `mini-windows', without ever giving a clue what a `mini-window' is. Might as
> well talk about resizing `thronbolts'.

Sorry, that's not true.  "mini-window" is hardly an inspired term, but
despite being kind of ad-hoc, it's not a random word, and that makes a
big difference.  When I first saw that variable, I instantly realized
what it probably meant.

[exactly why, I dunno -- maybe it's because "mini" ~= "minibuffer", and
hey, "-window", so it's that window... maybe it's just because
"mini-window" suggests a very small window, let's see... what on my
display is a very small window ... aha! -- anyway regardless of the
thought process, it worked on me.]

Now, maybe you were completely confused by those variable names, I
dunno, but I agree that if we can find a better terminology that makes
everybody happy, great!

>> Of course, it's not always to come up with a good term, but 
>> I'm not sure what other term would be better.  The terms you
>> suggested are pithy, but seem inaccurate.
>
> how is `minibuffer-echo-area-resize' inaccurate?

That's not the term you suggested; you said, in your original message:

> It would have been sufficient, if the name length were so important, to use
> `minibuffer-resize' or `minibuf-auto-resize'. Similarly,
> `minibuffer-max-height'. And `minibuffer' should probably come first in the
> name: `minibuffer-resize', not `resize-minibuffer'.

Such terms are inaccurate because they just say "minibuffer", which is a
something different -- a _minibuffer_ is the actual editable thingie
that is involved in user input.

That's why "minibuffer-window" is better:  it doesn't refer to
minibuffers per-se, but rather to the window used to display them, which
is something different.

-Miles

-- 
"She looks like the wax version of herself."
     	   	    		   [Comment under a Paris Hilton fashion pic]