From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Welsh Duggan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [External] : Rename .dir-locals.el to .dir-locals.eld Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:17:05 -0500 Message-ID: <87r191fa1q.fsf@md5i.com> References: <205e30fa-8b23-c797-b2c4-d2b8700930a3@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="1004"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: "emacs-devel@gnu.org" , Stefan Monnier , Dmitry Gutov To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 21 15:31:39 2022 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 1nAuwz-000AX9-G0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 15:31:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43684 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nAuwy-0005uU-ES for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:31:36 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52422) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nAuj4-0000i6-5a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:17:14 -0500 Original-Received: from md5i.com ([75.151.244.229]:50686) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nAuix-0004Cl-Tb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:17:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=md5i.com; s=dkim; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References: Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=6syuq0A0OOvc7I+g/MfM/Gc1Z0fmHdD7eUPsCB+bQH0=; b=B09vxoguUQrvKyUWNgEKEdJGLh yPBLcjLF9dt98+9YF2q5zSH8manW8Q5wGgwYWPu93M/lsVfeYfnjMvIBhMR7O2j8sMv2+4sBqopor DBdDZV4gwpIuXF8rdwKU9tDk4; Original-Received: from abode ([192.168.177.1] helo=miko) by md5i.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1nAuiv-004lwe-90; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:17:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2022 03:04:53 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=75.151.244.229; envelope-from=mwd@md5i.com; helo=md5i.com X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:285138 Archived-At: Drew Adams writes: >> > 2. Isn't every Elisp sexp "code"? How are you >> > going to distinguish "code" from other sexps? >> >> Try 'M-x eval-buffer' in any buffer visiting a .dir-locals.el file. > > Lisp data is Lisp code. Lisp code can raise > errors. > > Narrow any bit of fine Lisp code randomly and > eval it. It's still code; it's just unlikely > to be `eval'able without error. > > I think you're talking about Lisp code that's > Lisp-`read'able without error, but not > necessarily `eval'able without error. > > If so, fine. But that, in itself, doesn't > say why it merits a different file extension. > There may be good reasons. So far, haven't > heard any. >From my point of view, it is an indication that the lisp forms in the file are not guaranteed to be (and most likely will not be) evaluated. Having a separate mode means that buffers with this mode can automatically avoid linting as if they were top level forms intended for evaluation. Having a separate extension makes it easy to automatically use a different editing mode. Also, the extension and mode are good indicators to the user that any forms generally meant for evaluation (like backquote) are not guaranteed to enter a context in which they will be evaluated. All of this is just my opinion. I did not go back and reread the discussion that led to lisp-data-mode. I remember that I was swayed by the reasons in that discussion, so the reasons I state above may not be good enough to merit the change in your opinion. -- Michael Welsh Duggan (md5i@md5i.com)