Re: master 305dbc7 2/4: Move description of value to syntax-ppss function.

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 15.02.2020 16:55, Noam Postavsky wrote:

> > > -  (comment-nesting nil :documentation "\
> > > +  (comment nil :documentation "\
> >
> > Doesn't this name imply some other value? Like a string (comment opener
> > or its contents)?
>
> Hmm, you might be right about that. How about 'comment-depth': two
> characters shorter, and the other names also use "depth" rather than
> "nesting".

Sounds good.

> > > -  (open-paren-positions
> > > +  (open-parens
> > >       nil :documentation
> > >       "List of positions of currently open parens, outermost first.")
> > > -  (two-character-syntax nil :documentation "\
> > > +  (syntax-sequence nil :documentation "\
> > >    When the last position scanned holds the first character of a
> > >    (potential) two character construct, the syntax of that position,
> > >    otherwise nil.  That construct can be a two character comment
> >
> > These look okay to me.
>
> I'm actually feeling that the two-character-syntax one should be left
> as is, it's kind of obscure so having a longer and more explicit name
> seems better.

Agree (I also have never used it).

> > min-depth too, but, like last-complete-sexp-start, these fields in
> > values returned by syntax-ppss are unreliable/undefined, so they won't
> > be used in most Lisp programs anyway.
>
> I might be biased by having worked on the lisp indentation code which
> uses those fields quite a bit.

So... Lisp indentation code calls parse-partial-sexp directly?

Anyway, I said min-depth is okay, but if we're going to have 
comment-depth, maybe min-depth starts to sound more ambiguous.