From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:48:42 +0300 Organization: JURTA Message-ID: <87br2sim51.fsf@jurta.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1126917250 5964 80.91.229.2 (17 Sep 2005 00:34:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:34:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 17 02:34:02 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGQdv-0002TF-S0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:33:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGQZd-0001zl-T4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:28:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EGQZA-0001um-GZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:28:28 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EGQYy-0001lF-JN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:28:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EGQYw-0001jm-L8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:28:14 -0400 Original-Received: from [194.126.101.111] (helo=mail.neti.ee) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EGQWN-0003T6-EX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:25:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.neti.ee (80-235-43-173-dsl.mus.estpak.ee [80.235.43.173]) by Relayhost1.neti.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20741CA3; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:25:44 +0300 (EEST) Original-To: "Drew Adams" In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:19:38 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.2.1 (20041222) (Debian) at neti.ee 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:43021 Archived-At: > I didn't realize this was already decided. Are these default values > accessed via repeated M-n? Yes, very much like values from the history list are accessed via repeated M-p. > Is there any limit (or guideline) on their number? Do you mean a cardinal or ordinal number? Their amount is limited by the length of the list of default values. There are no guidelines for their ordinal number in the minibuffer, like there are no guidelines for the history list. > 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?" I agree with your reasoning. But OTOH there are many argument names which are adjectives like "existing" and "special". And "initial" is widely used too. My goal was not to make such arguments clearer, but to make argument names of related functions consistent between each other and between docstrings and manuals. > All of the following are clearer than "initial": "init-val", "init-value", > "initial-value". As there exist already only three different argument names: "initial", "initial-contents" and "initial-input", I'd choose one of existing names instead of introducing new names like "init-val" or "initial-value". -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/