[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes
From: |
Luc Teirlinck |
Subject: |
Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes |
Date: |
Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:19:11 -0600 (CST) |
Per Abrahamsen wrote:
I'd vote (0): if there is no group specified, don't put it in any
group.
That is exactly what I described under (1).
The option may very well end up in a group anyway (explicit call to
custom-add-to-group or the second argument to defgroup), but if it
doesn't don't worry about it.
I somehow forgot about those possibilities. There is, at closer
reading, indeed nothing, even in the current Elisp manual, that says
that a defcustom should have a :group. The manual seems to suggest
that every option should wind up in at least one group (which can
indeed be achieved in a variety of ways, it does not have to be done
by specifying :group), and even that suggestion could be reversed.
Having options that aren't in any group doesn't break anything, and
we have already spend way to much energy on this non-problem.
If nothing else, there is still one problem we have to take care of,
namely the change mentioned in the NEWS:
** defcustom and other custom declarations now use a default group
(the last group defined in the same file) when no :group was given.
This change should be reversed.
Not only does it not take custom-add-to-group and the second argument
to defcustom into account, it clearly assumes that even the most
inappropriate group is better than no group whatsoever.
If somebody would have chosen a group for `eval-expression-print-level',
`kill-read-only-ok' or `yank-excluded-properties', using one of the
alternative (and documented) possibilities, then there would have been
no reason to put them in the "paren-blinking" group too, just to make
absolutely sure that they are in at least one group. Seeing such options
in the "paren-blinking" group would be confusing to the Custom user.
Sincerely,
Luc.
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, (continued)
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Luc Teirlinck, 2003/11/27
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Richard Stallman, 2003/11/28
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Per Abrahamsen, 2003/11/29
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Luc Teirlinck, 2003/11/29
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Per Abrahamsen, 2003/11/29
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Luc Teirlinck, 2003/11/29
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Per Abrahamsen, 2003/11/30
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes,
Luc Teirlinck <=
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Stefan Monnier, 2003/11/30
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Luc Teirlinck, 2003/11/30
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Stefan Monnier, 2003/11/30
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Luc Teirlinck, 2003/11/30
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Stefan Monnier, 2003/11/30
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Luc Teirlinck, 2003/11/30
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Stefan Monnier, 2003/11/30
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Richard Stallman, 2003/11/30
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Per Abrahamsen, 2003/11/27
- Re: doc elisp intro cross reference fixes, Richard Stallman, 2003/11/27