From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eric M. Ludlam" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:52:13 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200210241252.g9OCqDv30070@beta.siege-engine.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035465718 2913 80.91.224.249 (24 Oct 2002 13:21:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:21:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: miles@lsi.nec.co.jp, wohler@newt.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, mh-e-devel@beta.siege-engine.com Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 184hvw-0000kq-00 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:21:56 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 184hy8-0005QE-00 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:24:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 184huM-0006pW-00; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:20:18 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 184ht9-0005Yg-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:19:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 184ht6-0005Qj-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:19:02 -0400 Original-Received: from choochoo.ultranet.com ([146.115.254.62] helo=beta.siege-engine.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 184ht4-0005JL-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:18:59 -0400 Original-Received: (from zappo@localhost) by beta.siege-engine.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id g9OCqDv30070; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:52:13 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: beta.siege-engine.com: zappo set sender to eric@siege-engine.com using -f Original-To: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:8732 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:8732 Hi, Every suggestion from the Emacs Lisp reference manual that could be easily tested, and auto-fixed was put into checkdoc. This has oft provided contention over if the tests were good or bad. I opted not to post judgment and have no personal stake in the different tests. Every test in the checkdoc code is prefixed with a comment that specifies why the test is there, thus a quote from the manual is there, or I wrote in "Addendum" when I added something I thought was lacking. I do recommend changing the manual if you want to hack out a test though. Lastly, checkdoc's original organic growth lead to some lack of configurability. I have a reconstituted checkdoc engine, but never finished porting the tests. The engine would keep every test in it's own function, and the test selection would be customizable via a simple list. Lute.Kamstra@cwi.nl offered to take that engine, and finish porting the tests. I don't know what the current state is. It will be a long task though. Eric >> I've never heard of this `convention,' and indeed, it sounds kind of >> dumb -- a `-flag' suffix doesn't really add any useful information >> (if you know the _meaning_ of a variable, then you already know whether >> it's boolean or not, and if you don't know the meaning, well, then it >> hardly helps you to know that it's boolean!). > >It's sadly even mentioned in the elisp doc :-( > > work/emacs-0% grep -C flag lispref/tips.texi > @item > If a user option variable records a true-or-false condition, give it a > name that ends in @samp{-flag}. > [...] > >Luckily it's rarely folowed. > >> Why on earth does checkdoc try to enforce this? Can we take that out? > >I'd be happy to. > >> [I have my own agendas of course -- I'd like to make checkdoc complain >> if people use a `-p' suffix for variables, or a `-face' suffix for >> faces...] > >Agreed for the `-p'. For `-face', I'm still not sure either way. > > > Stefan > -- Eric Ludlam: zappo@gnu.org, eric@siege-engine.com Home: http://www.ludlam.net Siege: www.siege-engine.com Emacs: http://cedet.sourceforge.net GNU: www.gnu.org