Re: [APPROVE COMMIT] Re: [patch] obsolete.el: new alias interactive-form for function-interactive
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>> "drv" == Didier Verna
<didier(a)xemacs.org> writes:
drv> I think we should standardize on what we think is the
drv> better terminology. In that particular case, I find theirs
drv> better :-)
Agreed. However, my definition of "better" is based on "what will
most of the library maintainers be happier to use?" In this case, if
we had "interactive-form" and they "function-interactive", I'd go
with
"interactive-form", definitely.
But if it's just a small difference (say, "interactive-specification",
which is more precise and thus better than "interactive-form"), I'd
say go with GNU's terminology, and obsolete ours, because that causes
less annoyance for people porting for GNU to XEmacs.
I think "interactive-form" is the better name. I've submitted another
patch to obsolete.el adding "makehash" and "frame-parameter" and it
strikes me that this may be the wrong way to go about adding GNU
compatibility.
Perhaps there should be a file for new compatibility aliases and
wrappers in the xemacs-base package? Then the present installed base
would become more compatible simply by upgrading their packages.
--
John Paul Wallington