From xemacs-m  Wed Jan 29 08:27:08 1997
Received: from wfdutilgw.ml.com (wfdutilf01.ml.com [206.3.74.31])
          by xemacs.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id IAA01288 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:27:07 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ml1.ml.com ([199.201.57.130])
          by wfdutilgw.ml.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/MLgw-3.03) with ESMTP
	  id JAA02353 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:25:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from swaps-post.swaps.ml.com (swaps-post.swaps.ml.com [199.201.39.40]) by ml1.ml.com (8.7.5/8.7.3/MLml-2.06) with ESMTP id JAA25710 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:29:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from swapsdvlp02.ny-swaps-develop.ml.com (swapsdvlp02.ny-swaps-develop.ml.com [146.125.10.79]) by swaps-post.swaps.ml.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id JAA03018 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:26:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: (powers@localhost) by swapsdvlp02.ny-swaps-develop.ml.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id JAA05264; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:26:36 -0500
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:26:36 -0500
Message-Id: <199701291426.JAA05264@swapsdvlp02.ny-swaps-develop.ml.com>
From: "Brent B. Powers" <powers@ml.com>
Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: [19.15b90]: Rogue dialog box
In-Reply-To: <kig680gdcbi.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
References: <9701280805.AA29140@mail.esrin.esa.it>
	<rvsp3mrz4s.fsf@sdnp5.ucsd.edu>
	<QQcakr23178.199701280922@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
	<199701290251.VAA02895@mykonos.interport.net>
	<kig680gdcbi.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
X-Mailer: VM 6.08/XEmacs 20.0

Hrvoje Niksic writes:
 > From: Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>
 > To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
 > Subject: Re: [19.15b90]: Rogue dialog box
 > Date: 29 Jan 1997 11:07:29 +0100
 > 
 > Peter Pezaris (pez@dwwc.com) wrote:
 > > How about use-dialog-box-p or something? Isn't that the standard for
 > > boolean-type variables? Can you imagine if every variable started
 > > "should"?
 > 
 > I'm not sure if it's /kosher/ to have boolean variables ending with
 > `-p'.  I remember a flame between Erik and Jamie about this, where
 > Jamie defended `teach-extended-commands-p', but I still think `-p' is
 > for functions.

I don't see anything non-halakhic about it, but, it does seem to me
that there's a general injunction in Bava Metzia (I think) dealing
with ona'a within the marketplace, in that a business man, or provider
of services, should not call something by an uncommon name in order to
mislead.

I would have to agree, though, that it doesn't seem _legit_ to have a
boolean variable looking, by name, like a function.

 > 
 > How about strait and simple `use-dialog-box' variable, with
 > `use-dialog-box-p' function?
 > 

