From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#50599: [PATCH] Don't recommend against "\[...]" substitutions for performance Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:41:27 +0300 Message-ID: <83lf3xc0d4.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83v932bawy.fsf@gnu.org> <83tuimb61d.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="22417"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 50599@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Kangas Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 15 17:43:50 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mQX4f-0005dd-UE for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 17:43:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33404 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mQX4d-0006Yj-ES for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:43:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46702) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mQX2w-0003zo-88 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:42:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:41442) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mQX2v-0004mw-W2 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:42:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mQX2v-0001r8-Ob for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:42:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 15:42:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 50599 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 50599-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B50599.16317205087114 (code B ref 50599); Wed, 15 Sep 2021 15:42:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 50599) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Sep 2021 15:41:48 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52988 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mQX2Z-0001qX-2N for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:41:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57756) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mQX2W-0001qH-Ew for 50599@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:41:38 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:40222) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mQX2Q-0004GU-By; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:41:30 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:1202 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mQX2P-0007GL-Ux; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:41:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Kangas on Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:13:59 +0200) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:214403 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Kangas > Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:13:59 +0200 > Cc: 50599@debbugs.gnu.org > > We change, in my patch, 'checkdoc-max-keyref-before-warn' to a value > like 1000 or 500 instead of nil. This would make me happy by not > impacting any real use-cases [none of which will have 500+ commands in > its docstring, or at least none of the ones that I care about will] > and it would (hopefully) make you happy by sufficiently calling > attention to any possible performance issues in some other cases. I didn't realize that checkdoc is involved in this. If the problem is that it produces annoying diagnostics for \\[..], then I'm okay with removing it or making it less frequent. I was only talking about the manual. > With that, perhaps we could agree that it is okay to delete the > paragraph in `(elisp) Documentation Tips'. Running 'checkdoc' is > after all recommended in that section as well. WDYT? My reluctance to delete that advice is unrelated to checkdoc or what it does. I don't want to remove that advice completely, as I already said and explained. But I'm okay with making the text be a more general advice as opposed to some rigid rule.