Re: bookmark.el and lisp/gnus/gnus-bookmark.el

[Bastien Guerry <bzg@altern.org>]

Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> writes:

>> (defun bookmark-buffer-name ()
>>   "Return the name of the current buffer's file, non-directory.
>> In Info, return the current node."
>
> ...if we're going to have `bookmark-make-name-function' now, shouldn't
> Info mode implement that function just like any other mode would?  Why
> have bookmark.el handle Info-related things?

Yes, we should move Info-related code out of bookmark.el.

>> 2. Use `bookmark-make-name-function' function in `bookmark-set' instead
>>    of `bookmark-make-record-function':
>
> You mean for making it buffer-local, right?

Right!

> But wouldn't we need to make them *both* buffer-local?  External code
> will still need to call `bookmark-make-record-function' too.

Yes, they should be both buffer-local.

> The overall plan sounds reasonable to me, modulo the above questions.

My single remaining hesitation is this one: having two buffer local
variables is a bit too much, since each mode would have to set them
both.  Better use `bookmark-make-record-function' for both purposes:
returning a name *or* returning a record.

For example, the function for text files would look like:

(defun bookmark-make-record-for-text-file (annotation &optional name)
   "Return the record.  
If optional arg NAME is non-nil, just return the default name for
this bookmark."
   ...)

I think it's easier.  Each mode should have to worry about one
buffer-local variable (and each dev would only read one docstring...)

> Although I've been guilty earlier in this thread of agreeing to readily
> without looking at the code, I have looked at the code this time, and
> still agree! :-)

Ok, I continue to agree !  Unless told otherwise (Tassilo?) I will
implement the solution with one single variable, and let Info-mode
set this variable accordingly.

-- 
Bastien