From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: obsolete comment in tool-bar.el Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:05:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <200507142205.j6EM51f12059@raven.dms.auburn.edu> References: <200507071915.j67JFZT29961@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200507090235.j692ZER04883@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200507110321.j6B3LgG09526@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <85y88dfcqw.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <200507130302.j6D32qE05640@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200507140208.j6E28tr08794@raven.dms.auburn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1121379254 30244 80.91.229.2 (14 Jul 2005 22:14:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:14:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 15 00:14:13 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DtBxs-0002EQ-UH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:13:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DtBv9-0000nY-Vg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:11:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DtBth-0008NS-DL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:09:37 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DtBtb-0008LZ-0c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:09:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DtBta-0008HP-Ll for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:09:30 -0400 Original-Received: from [131.204.53.104] (helo=manatee.dms.auburn.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DtBxZ-00065o-OA; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:13:37 -0400 Original-Received: from raven.dms.auburn.edu (raven.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.29]) by manatee.dms.auburn.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j6EM59CK006821; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:05:09 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by raven.dms.auburn.edu (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) id j6EM51f12059; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:05:01 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-reply-to: (rms@gnu.org) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:40893 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:40893 Richard Stallman wrote: Please install the doc string changes. Actually, after rechecking things today, it appears that my changes to the define-minor-mode code concerning the :initialize keyword were not necessary. I tested things yesterday and that testing seemed to show that the changes were necessary, but I must have done something wrong while testing yesterday. This also means that the :set and :type keywords are _not_ hardwired and can be overridden by specifying explicit :set and :type keywords. Thus, after rechecking, my proposed new docstring appears to be inaccurate. Since my code changes actually resulted in no changes in behavior, they would seem to require no doc changes at all. There is the question of whether my changes should be reverted. They do not result in any change in behavior whatsoever, but they avoid confusion for somebody who expands the macro to see what the define-minor-mode form he wrote really does (as anybody who uses define-minor-mode should do). So it seems that my changes actually were positive, even though not really necessary. It is a little bit inconsistent to do this for :initialize and not for :set and :type, but since :initialize will be used more often, it might make sense. So I believe it probably is better not to revert my changes to the define-minor-mode code. But since they do not produce a change in behavior, they do not seem to call for a doc change. Sincerely, Luc.