From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jonas Bernoulli Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Regarding outline headings in emacs-lisp libraries Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 21:18:03 +0200 Message-ID: <87pn8fo3dg.fsf@bernoul.li> References: <875zalolt7.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="926"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 28 21:20:28 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 1k0V9I-00007V-Bs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 21:20:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55090 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0V9H-0004v4-1r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:20:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58012) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0V73-0004Pg-HD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:18:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.hostpark.net ([212.243.197.30]:35840) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0V71-0002xn-MR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:18:09 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hostpark.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304F1165C8 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 21:18:04 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by Hostpark/NetZone Mailprotection at hostpark.net Original-Received: from mail.hostpark.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail0.hostpark.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10124) with ESMTP id WjsgLXgtMqrM for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 21:18:04 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hostpark.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F41BA165C1 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 21:18:03 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <875zalolt7.fsf@bernoul.li> Received-SPF: none client-ip=212.243.197.30; envelope-from=jonas@bernoul.li; helo=mail.hostpark.net X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/07/28 15:18:04 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = ??? X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 autolearn=ham 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:253316 Archived-At: 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. Jonas