From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philip Kaludercic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Silence checkdoc for symbols designating major and minor modes Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 11:17:15 +0000 Message-ID: <8735rwnj9g.fsf@posteo.net> References: <87k0lbfmto.fsf@posteo.net> <83tukeu0zl.fsf@gnu.org> <87fsvyfqce.fsf@posteo.net> <83eebito8f.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="653"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 30 13:20:39 2021 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 1m9QZD-000AYp-D9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 13:20:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60274 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m9QZC-0004uR-1G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 07:20:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47072) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m9QXc-0003BW-2u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 07:19:00 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:48699) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m9QW0-0002A3-Sm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 07:18:59 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 546AF240105 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 13:17:17 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1627643837; bh=5502B+qHPHHi5AAbJmINrZN2vkYytTSeGA3fcJpZe+4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=lyWqy4DZrkG33Bc87p763xjdz+plg8GArrx4QliWjlu+yum9o6YPjxx88mI1FwJNQ xliSuHWKnywILaof2qiYIUVNiEYJIgzPZQm8+O21lTiWgnsPDb1ZYV54nQq4ZqW4D+ TxtSin1EGMnPfbcs8HX21ELKce8nbAbD6HgZTdm8ZAVLhJNfBjDvMB4qI+F2zG6uJz FslQo8obsSLvRgYnO+lIUauE+5rRgMLivfyduHQTD2hwacb7Qed1chODOeNCwL6Vce O4dxv6ifM+K8CgK38oQVDbwR9o74OkU/rJGiMwHujgSrddu+tSJfdL1OKOo9L2HS7Y a0fRP9c/4j1uQ== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4GblH044njz6tn3; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 13:17:16 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83eebito8f.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 28 Jul 2021 19:08:48 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=philipk@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no 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:271835 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Philip Kaludercic >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:46:57 +0000 >> >> (defcustom rcirc-omit-responses >> '("JOIN" "PART" "QUIT" "NICK") >> "Responses which will be hidden when `rcirc-omit-mode' is enabled." >> :type '(repeat string)) >> >> triggering this response: >> >> Disambiguate rcirc-omit-mode by preceding w/ function,command,variable,option or symbol. > > FWIW, I think this warning should be removed wholesale. It is too > harsh to require such finesses in doc strings. I am inclined to agree, as in my experience, I have only ever seen false-positives being highlighted by this rule. > But if we want to keep it, I think we should include in the regexp > also the "enabled" and "disabled" part that follows it. Just > exempting "-mode" sounds too general for a heuristic. -- Philip Kaludercic