From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 1e3b0f2: Improve doc strings of project.el Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 02:17:34 +0300 Message-ID: <18a668a1-6f79-6ca3-9672-9d825e6a830c@yandex.ru> References: <87bllfqj82.fsf@warpmail.net> <83o8pfxhzq.fsf@gnu.org> <83imfnxgt3.fsf@gnu.org> <626efe11-0f9c-081b-11dd-0d61cee8168d@yandex.ru> <83h7v7xf7w.fsf@gnu.org> <831rmayj55.fsf@gnu.org> <6dc2c2ac-8e17-f044-dc78-8c109f936ad2@yandex.ru> <83wo42w83e.fsf@gnu.org> <83a70yw1y8.fsf@gnu.org> <83zh8xvs91.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="129008"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 Cc: philip@warpmail.net, theothornhill@pm.me, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 21 01:18:15 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1jmmkZ-000XT6-8I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 01:18:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48974 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jmmkY-0003M6-Ah for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:18:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43604) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jmmk1-0002b7-VT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:17:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::332]:36622) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jmmjz-0003lp-Tb; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:17:41 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id p19so1799548wmg.1; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:17:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=upEu1toL4agmahkZDUUWy5dcZhSdTxRZxxRrjhKIiDs=; b=DiiRbfckl/6344kRPsS0HondANDuLllXiULnwkfHk7ODM91WunDoBu6S8nam0GZdKb B4ScaE50zZbpgflY2NxkXzfU+YBHRDVOsIaqOZqnRTWnTVGXyfzyYUQT06EhCXphnavC b1xvIHoFZVjOqyPmLmK/CbFtbKDP2OA1p1XjfVOa/KY8jASD6QlY4oG52/uMxaSr0xf6 CzQS0rmfro/XFYxaFnBKF+ty1AbeqyDlwgfI4ePIuB8akG0l2KouQTWrWfAlMYalb1Lx XZJzq4BQCMyEeiMrQr6tMm4zmYmECkiZVA2Gqxtvta4evKwjN1JqIDWuXMkI+C+V2Hqf h1ZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=upEu1toL4agmahkZDUUWy5dcZhSdTxRZxxRrjhKIiDs=; b=e1Cs3SMAQtdqmrLWXlwv6b4i8rNgy/fRzhFr96t+6OfU277CIop4LSZdo4FX8vrz9P Smx8wcIFp3ZkM8LmFGzBgn/2bkqCgpyy34aF7Hg6KnGR6FL9YASYq+wFzR/cwQTDk7u9 8F7yOx1Pwbyas2lg4jgNAbFbzdG5fWoPT13C6V1plakHITiyhTPjV0cXxgqCpbrrrdpH 8nI9oezF13XZtop8Dmi5USKoon7pvfi8XSltxiDWFwMSSOK1CjObiuzgI93MVHnChIWM 3ho0cX+FXcVEVlB1p+4g/Y/Geh6Yq2JSw6Xyud4j3U2rj5djb7RqfRcJJET2YrS+E8HP rw5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530qp4l44u7y45gALYC68TcxDMDBsEpPpqbNtMPzY9cDHRTNM53W YLjXDhkT3Pk4IxSwMpttJ5DPx/f/ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyWu39oMAR/5Ehv1lNkM8ev18gqtz6ZeDTBGHQzoJR1h6xFCtf18sN+dC/ZAdIiJT2b8fspdA== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cf06:: with SMTP id l6mr10578452wmg.63.1592695057579; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.3] ([66.205.73.129]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id b81sm12233308wmc.5.2020.06.20.16.17.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:17:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83zh8xvs91.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: en-US Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::332; envelope-from=raaahh@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm1-x332.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (0.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:252473 Archived-At: On 20.06.2020 15:25, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Compared to an ad-hoc variable (or having a command that adds such a >> buffer manually), I'd much prefer an automatic approach. > > Not sure what does "automatic" mean here. If that means using only > currently available buffer-local variables, then who's to say that > this is good enough? And/or adding new custom variables and hooks. > Why limit ourselves to only such solutions? the > few presented examples already uncovered some deficiencies in relying > on one such variable. As explained in the other email, it's a matter of interpretation. > OTOH, we could introduce a new buffer-local variable to be > automatically set by, say, a find-file-hook, or by project-find-file, > or via some other feature we have. Same with recording relevant > buffers in some project-specific data structure. find-file-hook seems a bit late to use if we wanted to save which project the current command was called from. project-find-file would only affect file-visiting buffers, and only ones that we already consider a part of the current project. So what new info would it save? "Some other feature" sounds nice. > IOW, it sounds like we have any number of ways for doing something > like that, and the only argument is whether we should. I'm still not certain of what is the optimal solution.