André A. Gomes <andremegaf...@gmail.com> writes:
>> I am certainly of the mind that this would be a worthwhile change :) > > There's a problem though. Function names would have to be changed, > which would have to wait for version 10 otherwise we'd ruin backwards > compatibility. I see 61 functions with "headline" and 49 with "heading". So, a near even split. I think it would be a good idea to consolidate this. We can always use `define-obsolete-function-alias' and give a few years for people to shift over. > I think there's little sense in changing the wording in the > documentation alone. Agreed, we should be consistent across the board. -- Timothy
