> 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 _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
