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: declare function/macro private Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 01:59:43 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20210607033526.4c5nntohhprdkzzd@E15-2016.optimum.net> <574D41CF-B2A8-4D4A-A622-B3510F9CBC26@bydasein.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="22833"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Emacs-Devel List To: "Paul W. Rankin" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 07 08:01:01 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 1lq8Jn-0005dI-8T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 08:00:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54416 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lq8Jl-0003th-Iw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 02:00:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55118) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lq8Io-000367-Bw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 01:59:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:34913) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lq8Ii-0005xS-O9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2021 01:59:57 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1AB7180385; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 01:59:50 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 72FAC8033D; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 01:59:44 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1623045584; bh=KaaSt8ysxDCbWZ7+d6Gv80cu6wvU89KLqhb3WWSzpro=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=M9JlZasblrX2UGyxJ2Xt/KMU9FL/i8yDKjhJwiadVVZpptN8KfPqyWfhQRYVqMv4v DBSvIuNrXWGqcvZ8Z60Qk6WrBGZI+926dkzTEJfpsUGeilCy8mKo8rmYl6PZTMD4yV Udph6NMT4PsYgmfEtfkZZIaPbTjqDq5dt/Tbc0nxGehuZbbbU9aRDEBFAQzD9lcRsr jmosLPKVvxjPCktFcinPZNrOzQLP7FGxf+rRUaJCv/T5//2N9W/+kTsVfMYQ3KmV+V f+Hl5z3o6Xf4/0iCl1YPFlJlWajzzAgiK9cJZh57tZuRoaOpr8v4y+fY5wA4I89avZ th5cuXCaM+zwQ== Original-Received: from alfajor (69-196-163-239.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.163.239]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2AFA5120791; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 01:59:44 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <574D41CF-B2A8-4D4A-A622-B3510F9CBC26@bydasein.com> (Paul W. Rankin's message of "Mon, 07 Jun 2021 14:49:54 +1000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, 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=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:270519 Archived-At: >> No, I'm still wondering what it is you find to be different. >> My current guess is that you fear that "--" has currently been used >> carelessly and imposing a more "structured" meaning to it after the fact >> will hence introduce problems, whereas your declaration would come right >> away with an associated "precise" meaning. > I was *so sure* I had made this clear having said it four times, but okay: > I do not wish to impose or change anything. I'm not sure which part of what you quoted made you think that I think you with to impose or change anything (other than add a new declaration, obviously). > An optional addition. That's it. No one forces anyone to use it, just like > we have the interactive-only declaration and no one's house burnt down. Of course. My participation here is just based on the fact that your suggestion made me think about what we should do with "--". >From that stand point the two discussions are orthogonal. They only interact to the extent that they provide similar features so they are somewhat redundant. > Trying to retroactively impose some definitive meaning upon people's > use of "--" is, as I said, the path to ruin. I disagree. I've been in the business of slowly changing ELisp coding style for more than 20 years now, and while I'm not sure that what I've proposed here to do with "--" would work well, I'm pretty sure it would not be a path to ruin. > Others do not necessarily know what I know, i.e. while I may know that "--" > is a convention that means "internal" in Elisp, other people may not (or > likely do not). I suspect many programmers use it just because they've seen > it used in other packages. And given that Elisp does not have any explicit > definition of what is "internal" it would make little sense to impose one > now and say "oh well that's what we meant all along". I think most people who don't know better won't see any difference either after we'd introduce the new rule. Or if they do, they'd then learn about it and either adjust their code or ignore the warning. > This is not and was never part of my suggestion. Of course not. That was my suggestion. Stefan