[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Oct 2002 03:25:20 -0400 |
> So you noticed ;-). In addition to all of the new features, we also
> took pains to get mh-e to compile cleanly. It now also passes checkdoc
> cleanly, except for some old boolean variables that don't end in
> -flag. We'd like to fix those up before committing to Emacs and reduce
> the user exposure to the change, and obviously bump the major version
> to reflect that change (7.0).
Don't take checkdoc too literally. I for one strongly dislike the
idea of using -flag postfixes, as I've already mentioned somewhere,
among other things because it's not a widely followed convention
and because many boolean variables turn into 3-way (or more) variables
over time.
It's more important to keep the old names than to try to follow some
rarely followed convention.
Stefan
- mh-e 6.2 imminent, Bill Wohler, 2002/10/21
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/21
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/21
- Re: mh-e 6.2 imminent, Bill Wohler, 2002/10/23
- checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Stefan Monnier, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Miles Bader, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Miles Bader, 2002/10/24
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Richard Stallman, 2002/10/25
- Re: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent), Kim F. Storm, 2002/10/25