From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Let's tell we are using GTK+ Date: 05 Aug 2003 10:27:17 +0900 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87el00dhca.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> References: Reply-To: snogglethorpe@yahoo.com, Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1060047024 17934 80.91.224.253 (5 Aug 2003 01:30:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 01:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 05 03:30:41 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19jqev-0000FI-00 for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 03:30:41 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19jqjF-0000Ec-00 for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 03:35:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19jqdF-0003ko-Bl for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:28:57 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19jqdA-0003jq-8z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:28:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.20) id 19jqcd-0003Iv-57 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:28:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [203.216.5.131] (helo=smtp01.fields.gol.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19jqcc-0003Ip-EK; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:28:18 -0400 Original-Received: from filter01.fields.gol.com ([203.216.5.148] helo=localhost) by smtp01.fields.gol.com with esmtp (Magnetic Fields) id 19jqcb-0004v5-IX; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 10:28:17 +0900 Original-Received: from yokohama2-61-203-152-237.ap.0038.net ([61.203.152.237] helo=tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp) by smtp01.fields.gol.com with asmtp (Magnetic Fields) id 19jqca-0004uw-60; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 10:28:16 +0900 Original-Received: by tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 364793068; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:27:18 +0900 (JST) Original-To: prj@po.cwru.edu In-Reply-To: System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Original-Lines: 48 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS X-Abuse-Complaints: abuse@gol.com X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:15809 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:15809 Paul Jarc wrote: > > Do people really always include the `+' in the name? It seems sort of > > superfluous and annoying in this case. Why not just use the symbol > > `gtk-toolkit' for emacs? > > It would be nice if the same name were used everywhere. So in the > absence of any concrete problem, I'd prefer "gtk+", since that's the > name given to that package by its maintainers. It's not used consistently as it is; in fact, it seems to be used more often _without_ the `+' than with it, e.g.: name of the library: libgtk.so name of the init file: .gtkrc name of include file: (thrice!) name of the feature macro: USE_GTK (in emacs) prefix used by functions: gtk_... path for rc file in themes: gtk/gtkrc Really the only place the `+' ever seems to be used is in documentation; otherwise dropping it is apparently the convention, especially in `technical' contexts. > What makes + any more superfluous or annoying than g, t, or k? Because in contexts like this (naming of symbols used in an programming interface), punctuation tends to be be one of two things: (1) Noise added for readability, usually in a standard way (e.g., `_' in function names); usually in this case it acts basically like whitespace, and so tends to be ignored. (2) `Meaningful,' but again, used in a very stylized fashion, e.g., the `?' suffix used for scheme predicates, or various C conventions for underline prefixes. Anything that doesn't follow these conventions ends up being harder to use, because your brain likes to force things to fit with rules it's used to, even when it really shouldn't. This is especially true with `+', as it's visually not all that distinct from other characters that _are_ used in one of the above standardized ways (and in the case of the suggested emacs lisp symbol, the `+' was adjacent to a `-', which makes things even more fuzzy). -Miles -- 80% of success is just showing up. --Woody Allen