[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Adding a few more finder keywords

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: Adding a few more finder keywords
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 10:19:36 -0700 (PDT)

> > If you need something new, then add something new.  Don't
> > compromise existing constructs that others have been happily
> > using in ways you don't approve of or cannot make use of.
> > Share the road.
> It seems that a misunderstanding lead you to believe that someone is
> enforcing something. I ensure you that this isn't so. There will
> never be a warning unless the package author specifically runs an
> interactive command because he wants to check if his package will
> generate a warning.

Whether it's a package author or another user, s?he should not
be asking for a test of whether `Keywords:' contains unrecognized
keywords.  S?he should be asking whether some other, new,
package.el-specific field contains unrecognized keywords.

That's the point.  There is no sense in a package author or anyone
else looking to see whether `Keywords:' is "proper".  Doing what
you suggest will only encourage package authors to restrict
`Keywords:' to "proper" keywords.  That is misguided, is what I
am arguing.

On the other hand, it is entirely useful for package authors to
check for unrecognized package keywords.  That checking should
not be done against `Keywords:'.  That's all.

The feature you want to provide is something I've already said
I am in favor of.  The need for package authors to check for
unrecognized package keywords is a real need.  And a warning
when a package author checks for that is entirely appropriate.
Your new feature will be a welcome addition.

What you do not seem to get is that it is not `Keywords:' that
you and package authors should be using for this.  That's all.

> Inventing a new section is an option, but it's a cumbersome

Tough tiddlywinks.  Others got there before you.

That part of the prairie has already been settled.  If you want
to live there too, then live by the same wild-west rules as the
longtime inhabitants.  No one has asked for a new sheriff with
new rules.  You might find this locale dirty, messy, chaotic,
and confusing.  But that's what the settlers of `Keywords:'
had in mind, and that's they way they've developed it.  Think
Rio de Janeiro, not Brasilia.  This is not virgin territory.

> and unnecessary path.

It's not unnecessary.  It's necessary, if you (as I do) want
to preserve `Keywords:' for what it's been all along: a place
for arbitrary keywords, invented by anyone, for any purpose

> I can have what I want with just `Keywords:' without imposing
> anything on anyone,

In my book, discouraging and warning people about "improper"
keywords in `Keywords:' is imposing.  That kind of policing (or
kindly "suggesting") does not belong in `Keywords:'.  Please
take it elsewhere.  That's all I'm asking.

> possibly offering a guideline through a separate checkdoc utility
> that so far comes disabled by default.

All well and good.  Just please take it elsewhere from `Keywords:'.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]