From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Adding a few more finder keywords Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 09:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <36a1364b-5023-4dfb-96a0-6f8b710403b3@default> References: <87sia2l04r.fsf@gmail.com> <87lhfukxyv.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1433780744 11506 80.91.229.3 (8 Jun 2015 16:25:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:25:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Artur Malabarba , emacs-devel To: Oleh Krehel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 08 18:25:31 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Z1zrZ-00006b-93 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 18:25:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59143 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z1zrY-0004jG-JP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 12:25:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46479) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z1zrA-0004fE-V8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 12:25:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z1zr4-00078f-T8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 12:25:00 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1050.oracle.com ([141.146.126.70]:30218) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z1zr4-00077X-Me for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 12:24:54 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) by aserp1050.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t58GK3Gh013760 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:20:03 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t58GK2YK006700 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:20:02 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t58GK1ap025587 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:20:01 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0012.oracle.com (abhmp0012.oracle.com [141.146.116.18]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t58GK1dL023883; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:20:01 GMT In-Reply-To: <87lhfukxyv.fsf@gmail.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.70 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:187105 Archived-At: > >> I've just added `checkdoc-package-keywords' that checks if the > >> current file's keywords are in `finder-known-keywords'. > > > > Why? There is no reason to signal to users that there might be > > a problem if they use keywords that are not in `finder-known- > > keywords'. >=20 > It's a matter of checking the current keywords against a list of > keywords that are known to be good. `finder-known-keywords' is a > good start for such a list. I know, but experience shows that such "checks", even when intended to be only helpful and not restrictive, tend to be taken by some users as indicating what is permissible. IMHO, this is not helpful as the default behavior. Making it optional, and not turned on by default, lets any user who is savvy and will not be frightened or misled by such checking signalling phony "problems" can turn it on. > > The purpose of `finder-known-keywords' is not to suggest that > > other keywords are a mistake. File-header `Keywords:' is for > > arbitrary labels that any user can make use of. It is not only > > for "standard" keywords that might be "known" to Emacs at any > > state, let alone to Emacs at startup. >=20 > I've provided a command that a package developer can voluntarily > call to make sure that the keywords he chose are sound. That's good. I'm all for it. Voluntary, customizable, and turned off by default. And I would probably be in favor of making `finder-known-keywords' a user option, to facilitate and encourage user customization of "the keywords he chose". > It is for the benefit of all users if >2000 known packages can be > organized by a smallish list of keywords, with no redundant > synonyms, typos etc. But you just acknowledged that the list is for "keywords he chose", that is, keywords that a user can choose, and not just some predefined "smallish list" of "standard" keywords. > If a package author doesn't want to conform to the keyword > guidelines What guidelines? File header `Keywords:' is not for package.el. It predates it by decades, and its use is for arbitrary keywords. If you want to invent a different file-header keyword from `Keywords:', for example only for package.el or for your prescribed more restrictive, guidelined use, then I'm not opposed to that. But please do not try to co-opt `Keywords:' for something different from, and especially more restrictive than, what it has been intended and used for all of these years. > that I propose to recommend, fine: it's just a recommendation. If it comes from GNU Emacs, such a recommendation should not be applied to existing file-header keyword `Keywords:'. If you want to propose a new file-header keyword that has your recommended use and meaning, please go right ahead. In sum, OK to propose and check-doc whatever, but not for the existing `Keywords:' keyword.