argument names for define-obsolete-*-alias

[Nick Roberts]

 > Is everybody happy with the names of the `make-obsolete*' and
 > `define-obsolete-*-alias' arguments?
 > 
 > The alias being created is called FUNCTION or VARIABLE, and the symbol
 > (or definition) being aliased, NEW. Now, I understand the rationale:
 > NEW because it is the new, shinier name.
 > 
 > However, and even knowing as I know that all defining functions and
 > macros get the defined symbol as first argument, today I tried to use
 > `define-obsolete-variable-name' and on first reading of the docstring
 > I just put the arguments reversed. From the Emacs history POV, NEW is
 > indeed newer; from the use case of define-obsolete*, however, NEW is
 > "old" because it already exists.

NEW is an argument, not part of the function name, so I wouldn't expect
it to create a new symbol. These functions/macros are also defined in
XEmacs with similar argument names which makes it clearer that they
really do the same thing.

 > Wouldn't be better to use OBSOLETE and CURRENT (or MODERN), or ALIAS
 > and ORIGINAL, or some other pair that best defines the relationship
 > between the arguments?

I think these are confusing. OBSOLETE and CURRENT would only be 
obsolete and current _after_ the function/macro has been evaluated.
Maybe FROM and TO would work. 

On a related note, I find the arguments for defvaralias and defalias more
confusing than those for define-obsolete-*-alias.

Nick