Eli Zaretskii <
eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> From: Mauro Aranda <
maurooaranda@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:00:27 -0300
>> Cc:
43977@debbugs.gnu.org,
schwab@linux-m68k.org,
>> Lars Ingebrigtsen <
larsi@gnus.org>, bugs@gnu.support
>>
>> > See also bug#33566, which is what caused this issue.
>>
>> Andreas patch looks correct to me.
>
> I didn't say it wasn't.
I didn't mean to imply you said it wasn't correct. Sorry about any
confusion.
> I just pointed to that bug report, so that
> people could (a) see if there were other solutions to consider (e.g.,
> maybe to solve the original issue in some other way); and (b) so that
> the use case in that bug could be retested to make sure this proposed
> change doesn't adversely affect it in any way.
I think that:
(a) The group widget was misdocumented as a possible composite type in
the first place: that's why custom-variable-value-create was rejecting
it, because it didn't have the format spec it requires. But it was
documented, and later the group widget's :format adapted, so maybe it is
better to just leave that as it is now.
(b) While the change in Bug#33566 is what caused this issue, using "%v"
as the format for the group widget is perfectly fine here, and doesn't
affect any other uses of the group widget. There is no call to
custom-variable-value-create here, so no reason to worry about
overriding the :format spec to "%v" at all.