From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 2ef6f943abd: Add option to control default outlining in 'C-h b' Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 13:33:50 +0300 Message-ID: <83sfcnszjl.fsf@gnu.org> References: <168233653969.13461.3810563138120581789@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20230424114219.F2AEAC0004A@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <877cu1bf6q.fsf@gmail.com> <834jp5xn7v.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5ywn4qj.fsf@web.de> <83r0s8wjcf.fsf@gnu.org> <87leig9xm8.fsf@gmail.com> <838regwcnt.fsf@gnu.org> <87fs8o9spe.fsf@gmail.com> <835y9kw5ix.fsf@gnu.org> <86h6t3rjl8.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83leifvqsz.fsf@gnu.org> <86wn1zoofr.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83h6t3vo47.fsf@gnu.org> <878reft5vf.fsf@gmail.com> <83zg6vt31s.fsf@gnu.org> <87y1mfrmhh.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2810"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: juri@linkov.net, michael_heerdegen@web.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, orontee@gmail.com To: Robert Pluim Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 26 12:34:05 2023 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 1prcTL-0000T9-K9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:34:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prcSk-0005vX-Qi; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:33:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prcSk-0005vL-4r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:33:26 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prcSj-0001zA-2T; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:33:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: Date; bh=iSxEuDD+rngeCWRpGTOy2leg7Zt2yc6OytBE5JFZHf4=; b=PRHJz6rgb9D1XEFf4qHu MvFtUFejNIb4CcUoDWPp21udcUiOukoQnkmRYD37DUS0e0zSWX2TIPN7x3wvbQQf+11XEiE0VbAyp 9W4IYBemVyj3/g66ug2rmBc6/+oQuvjQO7vcwmYDHDtE0W5zTRG4NArTSK70uS1JX6+DT1pgw1eM/ tv2mgzr9NuN4ORwZbglAbDzPq3h1P5QvKtUBC+fMpDIGuvEM/FWHqsdtNAMuotJHx0a4OEmLKRNfE tPGo4Ci0TCwhJYeKYRWkOhfzj6+alo2AFPJwl4cA8nHebel8uaooyxLdKSDgT0pw3FZU4CvplX6Uk GPDisqMynP4hDQ==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1prcSf-00041q-1D; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 06:33:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87y1mfrmhh.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Robert Pluim on Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:01:14 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:305682 Archived-At: > From: Robert Pluim > Cc: juri@linkov.net, michael_heerdegen@web.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, > orontee@gmail.com > Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:01:14 +0200 > > >>>>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:18:07 +0300, Eli Zaretskii said: > >> I guess we could add `predicate', to be checked before > >> `custom-function', if set. If we do that, we definitely need to > >> document which outline functions are available. 100% backwards > >> compatible as well 😄 > > Eli> Or maybe we stay with custom-function, but allow it to return symbols > Eli> other than nil and t, so it could, for example, return > Eli> 'outline-show-branches'? > > That would work, but would mess up the hypothetical user who has > already written a custom-function without paying attention to its > return value. I thought we established there were no such users. But I guess we could also ignore any unknown symbol the function returns.