From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#25152: 25.1; Customize: errors for `restricted-sexp' in `repeat' Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 13:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <45d48716-1ac9-4cb3-9c64-042dddee4e77@default> <3a76061b-efa8-41b3-9baf-e3297a79b847@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30366"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 25152@debbugs.gnu.org To: Mauro Aranda Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 24 22:19:10 2020 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 1kWQ0M-0007mx-5Q for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 22:19:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33724 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kWQ0L-0006xu-7u for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 16:19:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34406) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kWQ0E-0006wm-0Z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 16:19:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:51938) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kWQ0D-0002r9-N5 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 16:19:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kWQ0D-0005S5-J6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 16:19:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 20:19:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 25152 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: fixed confirmed Original-Received: via spool by 25152-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B25152.160357070420910 (code B ref 25152); Sat, 24 Oct 2020 20:19:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 25152) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Oct 2020 20:18:24 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35251 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kWPzb-0005RB-JC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 16:18:23 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com ([141.146.126.79]:42988) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kWPzZ-0005Qy-OS for 25152@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 16:18:22 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09OK93TM104406; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 20:18:15 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=EShcXLoGvM2/80d6MUiKuLzuN1QT1McfRJK8T+p9en8=; b=OBsq0c9H6OyLgAMzqzsjoAvnihJn7RdHAqpreiuQkWYHhrZRP+qp5tFGy2KXoO9CjWy/ Y282+fehgEWnBIwpMHJWojYRyxF9GSj6uqn+A9ZF+fYZr7ZKiyeOjtMr6GsmbbG5ZWTu 4Gw0qvp/9aEIKicWCCb4zpFyD9FJ3xyPdNBbBCEdnO5BCMeJVMKqdMfeWO//c+caDhmK kj6vllUa3LvWZd5NhnqT/CCgYb5/HKiABvMV79t3DZtDL2g4ZXJvL+aXITyqKdYzNCaL ysGRFQp8IN0xxzVr6g05Vu8r26zYSJup6HG/uxyfe4Vc4FDCA4eeubrFCotcc5KwESJT mw== Original-Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by aserp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 34c9sah7f5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 24 Oct 2020 20:18:15 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09OKF8t3189630; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 20:16:15 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 34c9cr8n0j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 24 Oct 2020 20:16:14 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0007.oracle.com (abhmp0007.oracle.com [141.146.116.13]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 09OKGDtw016444; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 20:16:14 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5056.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9784 signatures=668682 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=954 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010240156 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9784 signatures=668682 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=971 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010240155 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:191453 Archived-At: > > If the problem is the default value then it's not up to > > a user to fix it, and most users won't know how to deal > > with such a warning (or error).=C2=A0 They can expect warnings > > and errors about their own behavior, but not messages > > about some problem with the defcustom definition. > > I didn't mean to say it was up to the user to fix it.=C2=A0 I said "good > enough information to fix the mistake", meaning the user can report to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > the maintainer the warning text along with the actions that triggered > it, and the maintainer should be able to take it from there. The user has to be able to understand that that; that is, to know that it's a maintainer problem and they should report it. I don't think your current user message invites that understanding. > > If the problem can't be detected before a user tries to > > customize, then maybe, when she does, the warning should > > make it very clear that the _default_ value is a mismatch > > and advise the user to report a bug to the library author. > > I think it is clear it is about the default value.=C2=A0 The message says > "A widget of type restricted-sexp has a bad default value." > > > IOW make clear that it's not about the user doing > > something wrong (and don't prevent the user from > > continuing to customize to a valid value). > > I don't see how a user could think he did something wrong with the > warning text I suggested.=C2=A0 I certainly don't think I did something w= rong > whenever I get Gtk-CRITICAL messages while using some software. > > And since it is a warning, the user can continue customizing the value. > So, I think that's covered. > > > Make it very > > clear that the problem is with the maintainer of the code, > > and suggest that the user report the problem.=C2=A0 And give > > the user some detailed info that can be copied in a report > > to the library maintainer. > > Do you think the example text I gave in the > previous message lacks some information about > the widget that triggered the warning?=C2=A0 If so, > what do you think is missing? This is the message you suggested, right? Warning (widget-bad-default-value):=20 A widget of type restricted-sexp has a bad default value. value: nil match function: widget-restricted-sexp-match match-alternatives: (functionp) Yes, I think that message is not so helpful for users. Most users won't know what a widget is, or a restricted-sexp, or any of the rest. They won't know what this is all about, or what they're supposed/asked to do about it. And yet it's a message aimed at users (who else will see it?). What I suggested was that the message to users should tell them: 1. The default value for the option is invalid. (Speak of option, not widget.) 2. They should report this as a bug to the maintainer. 3. They can still customize the option, to give it a valid value. If possible, we should also tell them _how_ to report the problem to the maintainer. At least as a fallback, we can tell them to use `M-x report-emacs-bug'. We can tell them to use `report-emacs-bug' if we can determine that the widget is vanilla. And we might tell them that anyway, even if we have no idea who the maintainer is. IOW, this is a message to a user who tries to interact with Customize. Either we say nothing or we tell the user there's a problem with the default value, and in the latter case we suggest that they report the problem to whoever defined the default value. What we should avoid is giving the user an impression that they shouldn't continue to try to customize the option, or that they themselves did something wrong. And we should avoid confusing them, speaking in terms of code/implementation. I may be missing something, but it seems to me that the message you're reporting is not for a user - it's a message to someone who can fix the problem, and maybe even someone who caused it. AFAICT, the message you're sending is a message for a maintainer, not for a user. If this were a byte-compiler message, it might be OK. Users know that those messages are generally about the code being compiled, which is not something they're (typically) responsible for. But a message responding to an interactive user action can't be something that talks about the underlying code (which isn't the user's fault) - UNLESS the message tells the user clearly that it's about that code AND asks them to report it to someone who might fix it. Just one opinion.