From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Scan of regexps in Emacs (March 17) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:17:46 +0200 Message-ID: <83ftrgux9x.fsf@gnu.org> References: < <5363970c-3207-1bb4-8b30-74a7d12277cc@cs.ucla.edu> <05269D79-B016-4FCB-94B8-068BF7D1C2D2@acm.org> <3974269b-6cad-0744-bd1f-66c067f94192@cs.ucla.edu> <4b1164c4-e302-ce41-07c3-145d31a97b4c@cs.ucla.edu> <5c3865d3-4f6f-4a07-be99-487ec0fb6217@default>> <> <<83d0mk6go5.fsf@gnu.org>> <36108066-ff96-48d2-86c0-06fb8ce127ba@default> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="9898"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 21 15:20:27 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h6yYT-0002Pk-JT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:20:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38081 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6yYS-0000Dl-IA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:20:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37045) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6yXS-0000Bk-Lv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:19:23 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:45811) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h6yVv-0007Q0-Ge; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:17:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2995 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1h6yVu-0001nk-VR; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:17:47 -0400 In-reply-to: <36108066-ff96-48d2-86c0-06fb8ce127ba@default> (message from Drew Adams on Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:21:38 -0700 (PDT)) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:234463 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:21:38 -0700 (PDT) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: drew.adams@oracle.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > The problem with an empty "should" is that it's > vague, and it can be misunderstood as a (possibly > shame-faced) "must". (Shame-faced ~ weasel.) That is true for documents that describe requirements of some sort. That's not what our documentation does. > But "should", "recommend", and "must" all typically > beg the question of what happens if you don't. That's an orthogonal issue, it exists regardless of the word you choose. > With "should", in particular, it's also typically > unclear how important it is that you do what's > suggested. I disagree, but I do think that if the text begs such a question, it should also answer it. Again, this is regardless of which word is used.