On Tue Aug 21 2012 Roland Winkler wrote:
On Tue Aug 21 2012 Leo wrote:
bbdb-record-x tells me it is about extensions. Additionally, fields
contained in x become meaningful, such as bbdb-record-x-uid,
bbdb-record-set-x-uid etc. That is clarify that can not be attained
otherwise. Just some
On 2012-08-26 04:09 +0800, Roland Winkler wrote:
Kind of natural would be `xfield' instead of `x' as a name for the
*list* of extra (custom) fields of a record. Certainly this matches
the lingo that both Leo and I used above.
I am fine with this ;)
Leo
On Sun Aug 19 2012 Leo wrote:
On 2012-08-19 00:36 +0800, Roland Winkler wrote:
I guess `x' is really just a prefix -- for what? I'd prefer a more
mnemonic name here.
Fair enough though using 'x' to mean extension is not uncommon. For
example, in emacs, we have a few libs: files-x, dired-x
On Fri Aug 17 2012 Leo wrote:
Would you be OK with 'x'? I got the idea from vcard where custom
fields are prefixed with x-.
I guess `x' is really just a prefix -- for what? I'd prefer a more
mnemonic name here.
Roland
Roland Winkler wink...@gnu.org writes:
I guess `x' is really just a prefix -- for what? I'd prefer a more
mnemonic name here.
The X- prefix is a convention sometimes used to indicate it's an
application-specific `eXtension' to some standard. This is
common in mail headers, for instance your
On 2012-08-19 00:36 +0800, Roland Winkler wrote:
I guess `x' is really just a prefix -- for what? I'd prefer a more
mnemonic name here.
Fair enough though using 'x' to mean extension is not uncommon. For
example, in emacs, we have a few libs: files-x, dired-x etc.
Leo
On Tue Aug 14 2012 Ivan Kanis wrote:
I have the following patch floating about. Would it affect me?
This is safe.
+(defun bbdb-record-edit-notes ()
+ Edit notes of current record.
+ (interactive)
+ (bbdb-edit-field (bbdb-current-record) 'notes))
High-level functions such as
On 2012-08-14 05:34 +0800, Roland Winkler wrote:
However, Leo's proposed change could also affect function names such
as bbdb-record-note and bbdb-record-set-note that address individual
note fields. To be internally consistent, these should become
something like bbdb-record-ext and
On Tue Aug 14 2012 Leo wrote:
On 2012-08-14 05:34 +0800, Roland Winkler wrote:
However, Leo's proposed change could also affect function names such
as bbdb-record-note and bbdb-record-set-note that address individual
note fields. To be internally consistent, these should become
something
Roland Winkler wink...@gnu.org wrote:
On Sun Aug 12 2012 Leo wrote:
(bbdb-defstruct record
firstname lastname affix aka organization phone address mail notes cache)
We should rename `notes' in the above to `ext' (for extensions). `notes'
and `note' are both used in the BBDB and they
On Mon Aug 13 2012 Ivan Kanis wrote:
Roland Winkler wink...@gnu.org wrote:
On Sun Aug 12 2012 Leo wrote:
(bbdb-defstruct record
firstname lastname affix aka organization phone address mail notes cache)
We should rename `notes' in the above to `ext' (for extensions). `notes'
and
11 matches
Mail list logo
