On 2023-06-09 17:03, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> Also, the code is fairly simple and self-contained, so I don't see
> a good reason not to include that.

Thanks :)

> I think symbols like `right-fringe` should be enclosed in `...'
> in docstrings.

Fixed in new patch, attached.

> Also, I see no reason to encourage the use of an alias,
> so I'd drop either `right-margin` or `right` from the doc (especially
> since it doesn't really come for free in the code).

Fixed. Dropped `right', as it was the less descriptive version.

> As a user I'd wonder if "align to right-fringe" means to align to
> the beginning (i.e. left side) or end (i.e. right side) of the
> right fringe.

Documented (and included a link to relevant info node).

> AFAICT, this function is internal to the implementation of the
> `mode-line-format-right-align` mode-line spec.  So maybe it should use
> "--" in its name.

You're right -- Done.

> This is the ugly part of the implementation

Yes, I agree :(

> an alternative is to use
> 
>     (..LEFT.. (:eval (mode-line-format-right-align ..RIGHT..)))

I share your technical worries about this. I worry too that this might 
end
up being more confusing for users, because it invites such constructions
as:

(..LEFT.. (:eval (mode-line-format-right-align ..RIGHT..)) ..WHAT..)

Where the behaviour of ..WHAT.. is at best to be completely hidden, and
at worst undefined. If we use a single symbol, this can't happen.

I also think that, as a user, it's good to have consistent interfaces
for this sort of thing, and my proposed function is intended to work
just like `tab-bar-format-align-right', which is included as a symbol,
not a more complex construction.

> should also be usable in `header-line-format` and friends.

This would good though.

Hugo