Re: The request of words matter updated

[Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 05:29:55 +0000:
> > > Once that's established, perhaps someone could arrange for an online vote
> > > at one of the websites that do that?  Given no technical change results
> > > from any of this, opinion is all we've got, and there's evidently no
> > > sign of a consensus.
> > 
> > This appears to be where we're going.  I'll do some research on this, but
> > if anyone has pointers to a good place for an anonymous vote, let me know.
> > 
> 
> I don't think it's time to vote yet; see
> <https://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html#when-to-vote>.
> 
> As producingoss explains, voting is going to leave half the participants
> unhappy.  Let's instead try and find a solution we can consense on.

I'll get the ball rolling:

- Use whatever terms the documentation of the function we call uses for
  these.  Whoever has an opinion on these terms — support, opposition,
  or anything else — is welcome to take it up with our dependencies'
  maintainers /as an individual/, but zsh /as a project/ will take no
  position on this issue, in order to facilitate collaboration between
  people who disagree on this issue.

  I mentioned this upthread, but (deliberately) not phrased it as
  a proposal at that time.

  To be clear, the proposal isn't to practise a Bystander Effect-esque
  "let someone else be the first to do something" behaviour.  The
  proposal is to name the actual parameters after the formal parameters.
  Disagreements about what to name formal parameters in zsh.git will
  remain this list's buck.  This is similar to the difference between
  a ring of N anonymous processors and a ring of N anonymous processors
  of which one is the leader.

- Let the variable names be chosen by a configure option.  (That means
  generating zpty.c from zpty.c.ac.)  The option's name, its possible
  values, and the behaviour when the option isn't passed will have to be
  decided upon.

Dnaiel