Re: master e4896fc 1/2: Add a new 'flex' completion style

[João Távora]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 2:37 PM Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > From: João Távora <address@hidden>
> > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:50:15 +0000
> > Cc: emacs-devel <address@hidden>
> >
> > > Iʼm all in favour of respect, but what does that mean in the context
> > > of PRED and POINT?
> >
> > It means M-x checkdoc shuts up about it, that's what it means :-)
> > (or rather flymake's checkdoc backend stops underlining it).
> >
> > It also means I'll think twice about adding docstrings to functions
> > I modify, even internal functions.
> >
> > > What is 'PCM-style'? What does 'massaged' mean? What is the signature of
> > > TRANSFORM-PATTERN-FN?
> >
> > "It be" take a pattern, and it be return a pattern.
> >
> > To be clear, I agree this isn't the best docstring in the world. Is it
> > better than what was before, which was nothing?  Perhaps that's
> > arguable and I shouldn't have added it in the first place, forcing
> > err inviting people like me to go read the source code.  Doing
> > a good docstring is hard and I usually reserve those efforts for
> > user-visible functions. You could have very well asked me
> > what exactly a "PCM-style substring pattern" is, since that's
> > just as loosely defined as everything else around those
> > parts.
>
> There's no reason to feel offended by Robert's comments.  They mean
> well: to make our doc strings better.  They don't mean your change
> wasn't an improvement, and surely weren't meant to offend you.
>
> Thanks for making those changes.

Sorry, I didn't _feel_ offended.  Sorry if I _sounded_ offended
and/or aggressive.

Thanks Robert :-)