[slim-vim] Arguments for replace-lines and buffer-lines

[Larry Clapp]

On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 02:53:19PM +0100, Eirik A. Nygaard wrote:
> buffer-lines takes three optional arguments, buffer, start and end,
> in that order. While replace-lines takes three keyword arguments,
> :start, :end and :buffer. Would anyone object to using keyword as
> well, being able to just specify the start. As of now you always
> have to specify the buffer, which seems a bit redundant at times.

Yes, I agree, use keywords for buffer-lines.

Actually, though, I'd vote to make buffers and windows and cursors
CLOS classes, and then you can have e.g. (cursor-of window)[1] instead
of (window-cursor window).

But maybe we can have two interfaces, one low level and straight
procedural and one higher level and OO, which calls the procedural
layer.  And with classes we can say (defclass lisp-buffer (buffer)
...) and so forth.

And, of course, with packages, if you don't like what I do, you can do
something completely different.  :)

-- Larry

[1] See http://random-state.net/log/3349776628.html for the foo-of
convention, which I haven't actually tried in practice, but it looks
interesting.