[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Dec 2021 18:23:32 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> Seeing how I haven't heard any opposition to the idea, I fixed a few
>> loose ends, and I think it's now ready. See below.
>> Any objection?
> This seems to do much more than just what you said, even if I include
> the obvious cleanups, like unnecessary variables and support code no
> longer required. Are all the changes really necessary/derived, or did
> you take the chance to make some additional changes, which should
> perhaps be discussed separately?
I don't think this includes any unrelated change. I know I have
a tendency to do that even without noticing it, but I tried to be
careful this time.
Some of the needed changes could be done differently (mostly the
changes that revolve around the use of relative file names), I guess,
but it's all either needed or subsequent obvious cleanup.
>> When Emacs starts up, it sets up the value of @code{load-path}
>> -in several steps. First, it initializes @code{load-path} using
>> -default locations set when Emacs was compiled. Normally, this
>> -is a directory something like
>> +in several steps. First, it initializes @code{lisp-directory} using
>> +default locations set when Emacs was compiled.
> You used for lisp-directory the same words as we used for load-path,
> but is that the correct description?
Good question. I think it should (as in, any difference is likely
a sign of a bug), tho I haven't looked closely at the code to see if the
code matches this expectation.
> Looking at the code that computes the value of lisp-directory, I don't
> think so, I think you can say something much more accurate and
> explicit about lisp-directory.
Don't know what that would look like.
> Moreover, the text about load-path is now completely gone, and that is
> a net loss, I think.
I don't see it being gone. But yes, I'm not super happy with the text
I have. I already rewrote it three times before the version you saw.
I'd appreciate some help with it.
>> +@defvar lisp-directory
>> +Name of the directory holding Emacs's bundled Lisp files.
> This is not accurate enough, given that it could mean both the place
> where Emacs was built (the "bundled" part can be interpreted that
> way), the place where *.el and *.elc files are installed when the
> built Emacs is being installed, and the place where the *.eln files
> are installed.
Hmm.. not sure how to avoid those problems: mentioning what it is not
would seem to muddy the waters even further.
>> +Normally, this is a directory something like
>> @example
>> "/usr/local/share/emacs/@var{version}/lisp"
>> @end example
> This should tell what does @var{version} stand for.
(apparently like the author of that chunk) I don't see why that
would be necessary.
> Likewise. Actually, "files that come with GNU Emacs" is even worse in
> its ambiguity than "bundled".
Any suggestion for a better wording?
> And why isn't the main part of the change called out in NEWS?
> I think this is something we should announce.
AFAIK it's invisible to the end user, so I think it isn't worth
mentioning there.
Stefan
- Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files, (continued)
- Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files, Stefan Kangas, 2021/12/27
- Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2021/12/28
- Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/12/28
- Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files, Stefan Monnier, 2021/12/28
- Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/12/29
- Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/12/30
- Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files, Stefan Monnier, 2021/12/30
- Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/12/31
- Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files, Stefan Monnier, 2021/12/31
- Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/12/31