RE: no doc for `group' in custom :type

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

>     The doc bug described below was apparently fixed by just
>     adding an explanation of the type `group' (in node Common
>     Keywords).
>
> I do not see that.  Can you please SHOW the text you are referring
> to rather than describing it?

My bad. I thought you had added an explanation of `group' in node Common
Keywords, but I was mistaken.

> Anyway that is the wrong place to explain a type.
> So I just wrote text to expain `group' in Composite Types.

I can't find where such an explanation was added, so the bug seems to be
still outstanding as it was originally reported: no explanation of type
`group'.

The only occurrence of `group' I see in node Composite Types (latest CVS
texinfo) is this:

@item :indent @var{columns}
Indent this item by @var{columns} columns.  The indentation is used for
@samp{%n}, and automatically for group names, for checklists and radio
buttons, and for editable lists.  It affects the whole of the
item except for the first line.

That doesn't explain what the type `group' is.

>     However, the example that should have been changed to use
>     `list' instead of `group' still uses `group'. See type `alist'
>     in node Simple Types.
>
> Do you mean this?
>
>     @smallexample
>     (defcustom list-alist '(("foo" 1) ("bar" 2) ("baz" 3))
>       "Each element is a list of the form (KEY VALUE)."
>       :type '(alist :value-type (group integer)))
>     @end smallexample

Yes.

> I think it is ok to use `group' if that looks better.

I guess you mean that a `group' type looks better than a `list' type in a
Customize buffer. Maybe so. If you substitute `list' for `group' in that
example, the only difference is that `List:' is added before `Integer: 1'.
OK, that's looks a little better.

However, it is less clear, especially in an example intended to explain  use
of the `alist' type with a list as the value component. `list' should be
used here because the type is a list of one integer - the type spec should
be written (list integer).

And the mysterious sentence still follows the example:

 The @code{group} widget is used here instead of @code{list} only
 because the formatting is better suited for the purpose.

It's not clear here what formatting is meant - the formatting in the
Customize buffer.

Per my reading of Per's mail, `group' is for widgets, rather than being
intended as a customizaton type. He said:

> The custom types, by nature, always represent sexps.
> So only the sexp expressions should be used.

That means `list', not `group' should be used, AFAICT.

I don't understand why a discussion of Customize types would introduce
`group' at all, if it is for widgets but not for Customize types.

And if `group' is also intended for Customize types, then it needs to be
documented. This example uses the type `group', but it was never introduced.