On a related subject, and being a bit nit-picky - does anyone else think
that these things should be harmonized & better documented?
- Neither the Emacs manual nor the Emacs-Lisp manual contains the word
"inviolable".
- Both manuals refer to the "intangible" property.
- Is "intangible" not the same property as what Customize refers to as
"inviolable"? More precisely, isn't the "intangible" property what makes the
minibuffer-prompt area "inviolable"?
- If so, wouldn't it be better to stick to the same term, whichever we
choose? Especially since "inviolable" conveys no more meaning to the
uninitiated than "intangible" - nothing is gained by using it, except
another layer of obfuscation.
Of the two terms, "intangible" is more accurate, IMO.
Someone will perhaps reply that "inviolable" applies to the
minibuffer-prompt area, indicating that it cannot be entered ("violated"),
while "intangible" is the corresponding text property of that area. Even so,
I think more would be gained by using the same term ("intangible") in
Customize. That would help users make the link with all of the doc that
describes the characteristics of the "intangible" property.
_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
