From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Not using DOC for ELisp files Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2021 18:23:32 -0500 Message-ID: References: <834k6snbko.fsf@gnu.org> <83fsqclhlh.fsf@gnu.org> <838rw3lgiu.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5774"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: akrl@sdf.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 30 00:24:17 2021 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 1n2iIq-0001Jo-Fk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2021 00:24:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60272 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n2iIp-0002X1-Es for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2021 18:24:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38176) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n2iIG-0001sR-Lw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Dec 2021 18:23:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:14274) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n2iIE-0001lK-7f; Wed, 29 Dec 2021 18:23:39 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8CE7F803F7; Wed, 29 Dec 2021 18:23:35 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B0AB18035A; Wed, 29 Dec 2021 18:23:33 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1640820213; bh=V3tuE3cHcxmIXrZBMEPcNZq4MWhTjEQLft2D44EAxH4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=U9iZBD3WGROqUM6ce3FOktZGv4jICTiI6AVrdTF55aJ1TBH8JnsuilytgnBVvPxke GMjKJaJcXrESxD39tP+yX47FBseZz59C8hOmscoTo3giuGA6r0zbQM8VjEgKCgDBGI wIOYheK5JmmO+HZm8JB7TIh7z4g6+Mqf5MeoY1ub0Djl2586WhxyQzzMGNfwVaeIPA /UD4X06Hfx/BuL8plavupxlqDd5ciIgFr0T6YpH7gKxqyMKKNJlRU3TFcSfIeHtXi0 4pGz/WXG1Lp2yKtjG8cHIzqhzRPlo5JZxukynQg0ZdyMjDAkGjSjwS5VNqS/gNScIT WMAu8fBYPsDlg== Original-Received: from ceviche (unknown [216.154.30.173]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 78BDF12040D; Wed, 29 Dec 2021 18:23:33 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <838rw3lgiu.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 29 Dec 2021 14:52:41 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -23 X-Spam_score: -2.4 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.4 / 5.0 requ) DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable 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:283594 Archived-At: >> Seeing how I haven't heard any opposition to the idea, I fixed a few >> loose ends, and I think it's now ready. See below. >> Any objection? > This seems to do much more than just what you said, even if I include > the obvious cleanups, like unnecessary variables and support code no > longer required. Are all the changes really necessary/derived, or did > you take the chance to make some additional changes, which should > perhaps be discussed separately? I don't think this includes any unrelated change. I know I have a tendency to do that even without noticing it, but I tried to be careful this time. Some of the needed changes could be done differently (mostly the changes that revolve around the use of relative file names), I guess, but it's all either needed or subsequent obvious cleanup. >> When Emacs starts up, it sets up the value of @code{load-path} >> -in several steps. First, it initializes @code{load-path} using >> -default locations set when Emacs was compiled. Normally, this >> -is a directory something like >> +in several steps. First, it initializes @code{lisp-directory} using >> +default locations set when Emacs was compiled. > You used for lisp-directory the same words as we used for load-path, > but is that the correct description? Good question. I think it should (as in, any difference is likely a sign of a bug), tho I haven't looked closely at the code to see if the code matches this expectation. > Looking at the code that computes the value of lisp-directory, I don't > think so, I think you can say something much more accurate and > explicit about lisp-directory. Don't know what that would look like. > Moreover, the text about load-path is now completely gone, and that is > a net loss, I think. I don't see it being gone. But yes, I'm not super happy with the text I have. I already rewrote it three times before the version you saw. I'd appreciate some help with it. >> +@defvar lisp-directory >> +Name of the directory holding Emacs's bundled Lisp files. > This is not accurate enough, given that it could mean both the place > where Emacs was built (the "bundled" part can be interpreted that > way), the place where *.el and *.elc files are installed when the > built Emacs is being installed, and the place where the *.eln files > are installed. Hmm.. not sure how to avoid those problems: mentioning what it is not would seem to muddy the waters even further. >> +Normally, this is a directory something like >> @example >> "/usr/local/share/emacs/@var{version}/lisp" >> @end example > This should tell what does @var{version} stand for. (apparently like the author of that chunk) I don't see why that would be necessary. > Likewise. Actually, "files that come with GNU Emacs" is even worse in > its ambiguity than "bundled". Any suggestion for a better wording? > And why isn't the main part of the change called out in NEWS? > I think this is something we should announce. AFAIK it's invisible to the end user, so I think it isn't worth mentioning there. Stefan