From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: What version of Emacs still requires '*' in defcustom docs? Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:16:13 +0900 Message-ID: <87ty2vdzrm.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <1a4nuxknrk.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87wr7sxsp7.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1329113799 14717 80.91.229.3 (13 Feb 2012 06:16:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:16:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 'Chong Yidong' , Drew Adams , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 13 07:16:37 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RwpDG-0006bq-Sd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:16:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42046 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RwpDG-0006ER-8t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:16:34 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:51015) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RwpDE-00066f-36 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:16:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RwpDC-0001xp-Uy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:16:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:54081) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RwpDC-0001wx-Mo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:16:30 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E069707F2; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:16:14 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E17B91A2811; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:16:13 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta31) "ginger" e6b5c49f9e13 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:148538 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > > Why is it important to make such a change? > > Because complexity is a problem in itself and as maintainers our main > task is to try and keep it in check, so the code doesn't crumble under > its own weight. The problem is that this is complexity for the maintainers, and it's minor. Making the change of `defvar ... "*..."' to defcustom is imposing maintenance costs on 3rd-party package maintainers, and potential additional complexity (in the custom interface) on users. The custom hierarchies for Gnus and VM are awful in my experience. In reaction, in some cases I've made a distinction between things that a very few users might want to change, and defcustoms. YMMV, but I think if somebody proposes porting this change to XEmacs, I'll oppose it at least at first.