From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thorsten Jolitz Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Regarding outline headings in emacs-lisp libraries Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 18:53:07 +0200 Message-ID: <87364r4xho.fsf@gmail.com> References: <875zalolt7.fsf@bernoul.li> <87pn8fo3dg.fsf@bernoul.li> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="656"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:V8ba/dbTm1iHT7g3MDMjcJb8byo= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 12 18:53:50 2020 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 1k5u0b-000AeP-GF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 18:53:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37868 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k5u0a-0004qA-Ij for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:53:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48146) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k5u06-0004NQ-Gx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:53:18 -0400 Original-Received: from static.214.254.202.116.clients.your-server.de ([116.202.254.214]:37566 helo=ciao.gmane.io) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k5u04-0005gf-T6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:53:18 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k5u00-0009vk-KT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 18:53:12 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/08/12 12:53:12 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: 20 X-Spam_score: 2.0 X-Spam_bar: ++ X-Spam_report: (2.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=1, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no 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:253702 Archived-At: Jonas Bernoulli writes: Hallo, > Let me summarize the conversation so far: > > 1. I make some arguments as to why it is better for the sections that > contain code to be top-level sections instead of sub-sections of a > single top-level section. > > One can of course disagree with those arguments but that has not > really happened. Stefan stated that he ever so slightly prefers > the nested approach but also that he is fine with either style. > > 2. Eli approves the change as long as we adjust the documentation and > rename the "Code:" section to something else because if it does not > contain all the code anymore, then keeping the old name would be a > misnomer. > > > But after the proposed changes, almost none of the code will be > > under "Code:", so the name will be a misnomer, no? > > 3. Stefan does not want to rename "Code:" to something else because it > is the one bit that in nearly all elisp files. > > > I definitely don't want to rename "Code:" to something else. It > > would be a rather gratuitous change, since "Code:" is basically the > > only section that appears in virtually all Elisp files and renaming > > it would provide very little concrete benefits. > > Stefan also thinks that what Eli calls a "lie" is just a "very minor > cosmetic problem". > > Is that what they call a Mexican Standoff? > > I think the conversation should be about whether my arguments as to > *why* we should change the recommended style are sound, but we discuss > whether "Code:" should be renamed or not. (I tend to agree with Stefan > that it {should not / does not have to be} renamed.) Nothing wrong with > discussing that detail, but I fear that disagreement about it is what > will ultimately derail my proposal; not disagreement about the merit of > my arguments as to why it is preferable to skip one nesting level. Quite some time ago when writing outshine.el (with outorg.el and navi.el) I saw a lot of strange behaviour wrt comments and outlining in Emacs core elisp files, and wrote quite an extensive analysis about it: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2013-10/msg00112.html Maybe that is still of some interest today. I critizised that ;;;Code: convention too in that mail, since it leads to extremely unbalanced outlining. But during that discussion in 2013, it was concluded too that a change is not worth the pain. I just wanted to mention this, since this old thread from 2013 might already be forgetten. I apologize, if it has been mentioned already and I did not read the current thread from the start. -- cheers, Thorsten