Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes

[Luc Teirlinck]

Per Abrahamsen wrote:

   > Isn't it a bug for a defcustom to lack a :group?

   It was never intended for that case to be a bug.

The following change (quoted from the NEWS) treats it as a bug:

    ** defcustom and other custom declarations now use a default group
    (the last group defined in the same file) when no :group was given.

If it is legitimate for a defcustom to have no :group (and hence to
have the option unlisted or listed in the `nil' group), then it is not
right to blindly override the author's decision to make that
legitimate choice and the above change should be reversed.

Also, I believe that if it is legitimate, (elisp)Customization should
explicitly mention that possibility and give some guidelines on when
it is OK to use it. 

Sincerely,

Luc.