From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kosyrev Serge <_deepfire@feelingofgreen.ru> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] ox-taskjuggler.el: add 'org-taskjuggler-multivalued-property' Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:03:32 +0300 Message-ID: <87si4bduaj.fsf@feelingofgreen.ru> References: <87h9kulrol.fsf@feelingofgreen.ru> <87r3jvjh1m.fsf@gmx.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42547) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <_deepfire@feelingofgreen.ru>) id 1ZwvHf-0006Il-Tj for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:03:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <_deepfire@feelingofgreen.ru>) id 1ZwvHc-0000uq-Li for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:03:39 -0500 Received: from [80.92.100.69] (port=46003 helo=mail.feelingofgreen.ru) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <_deepfire@feelingofgreen.ru>) id 1ZwvHc-0000uB-EB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:03:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87r3jvjh1m.fsf@gmx.us> (sfid-20151112_201835_684459_3C024ECB) (rasmus@gmx.us's message of "Thu, 12 Nov 2015 17:53:09 +0100") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Rasmus Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Rasmus writes: > Kosyrev Serge <_deepfire@feelingofgreen.ru> writes: >> +(defun org-taskjuggler-multivalued-property (property element) >> + "Obtain PROPERTY of ELEMENT, treating it as a multi-valued property. > > Isn't the docstring a bit tautological? Does property mean the same in > the beginning and the end of the sentence? Sorry if I=E2=80=99m missing = something > obvious here... The first occurence "binds" the parameter name within the semantic structure of the sentence, so to speak, whereas the second one provides the description of what is done to the obtained entity. Coming from the Common Lisp background, the uppercased argument names are often used for this kind of semantic "binding", and in these cases the need to explain what is done to the "bound" names isn't obviated. It's merely a cultural default, so I have no particularly strong feeling about the docstring. If you have a better idea, we can discuss that : -) --=20 =D1=81 =D1=83=D0=B2=D0=B0=D0=B6=D0=B5=D0=BD=D0=B8e=D0=BC, =D0=9A=D0=BE=D1=81=D1=8B=D1=80=D0=B5=D0=B2 =D0=A1=D0=B5=D1=80=D0=B3=D0=B5= =D0=B9 =D1=80=D1=83=D0=BA=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=B8=D1=82=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C = =D0=BE=D1=82=D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BB=D0=B0 =D1=82=D0=B5=D1=85=D0=BD=D0=BE=D0=BB= =D0=BE=D0=B3=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=B2=D0=B8=D1=80=D1=82=D1=83=D0=B0=D0=BB=D0=B8= =D0=B7=D0=B0=D1=86=D0=B8=D0=B8 Positive Technologies