[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
Subject: |
Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:28:04 +0200 |
On 9/16/05, Drew Adams <address@hidden> wrote:
> BTW, must the C parameter (implementation) name be identical to the Lisp
> name?
No. The "usage:" directive in docstrings of C-defined DEFUNs allows
using any name desired for Lisp argument names in the docstring,
irrespective of the implementation names used in C code.
--
/L/e/k/t/u
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, (continued)
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/09/16
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Juri Linkov, 2005/09/16
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/09/17
- RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Drew Adams, 2005/09/17
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/09/17
- RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Drew Adams, 2005/09/19
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Robert J. Chassell, 2005/09/19
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/09/18
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Kim F. Storm, 2005/09/19
- RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Drew Adams, 2005/09/16
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings,
Juanma Barranquero <=
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Juri Linkov, 2005/09/16
- RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Drew Adams, 2005/09/16
- Re: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Juri Linkov, 2005/09/16
- RE: Argument names in Elisp Reference vs docstrings, Drew Adams, 2005/09/16