From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Patch for fields of `struct buffer' Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:58:06 -0500 Message-ID: References: <874o8tdjt0.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> <87d3ng30bj.fsf@catnip.gol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1296273500 10802 80.91.229.12 (29 Jan 2011 03:58:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 03:58:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Tom Tromey , Emacs discussions , "Kim F. Storm" To: Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 29 04:58:15 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pj1x1-0006DM-Ls for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 04:58:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36261 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pj1x1-0008TL-4B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:58:15 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54521 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pj1wv-0008T2-Rz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:58:11 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pj1wu-0003Uj-QT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:58:09 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183]:14348 helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pj1wu-0003Ud-O6; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:58:08 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEABYfQ01FpY7U/2dsb2JhbAClA3S7K4VPBIUYj2g X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,395,1291611600"; d="scan'208";a="89659884" Original-Received: from 69-165-142-212.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([69.165.142.212]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 28 Jan 2011 22:58:07 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id AC82B660DC; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:58:06 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87d3ng30bj.fsf@catnip.gol.com> (Miles Bader's message of "Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:34:08 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.183 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:135191 Archived-At: >>> B_(buf, XXXX) >> That sounds even better, yes. > If by "better" you mean "less readable and more confusing"... Apparently it's a question of taste, but I feel it's good when the symbol I see in the declaration of a field/variable is the same (literally, and not uppercased or anything) as the one I see in the code that accesses this field/variable. Stefan