Making DOC argument of define-minor-mode optional

Making DOC argument of define-minor-mode optional

[Philipp Stephani]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 154 bytes --]

Hi,

the docstring created by define-minor-mode with nil DOC is useful and often
better than what users write. Should DOC therefore be optional?

Philipp

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 223 bytes --]

Re: Making DOC argument of define-minor-mode optional

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:04:13 +0000
> 
> the docstring created by define-minor-mode with nil DOC is useful and often better than what users write.
> Should DOC therefore be optional?

Not sure we would like to educate Lisp programmers to stop thinking
about good doc strings.

Re: Making DOC argument of define-minor-mode optional

[Nicolas Petton]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 298 bytes --]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> the docstring created by define-minor-mode with nil DOC is useful and often better than what users write.
>> Should DOC therefore be optional?
>
> Not sure we would like to educate Lisp programmers to stop thinking
> about good doc strings.

I agree.

Nico

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 472 bytes --]

RE: Making DOC argument of define-minor-mode optional

[Drew Adams]

> >> the docstring created by define-minor-mode with nil DOC is useful
> >> and often better than what users write.
> >> Should DOC therefore be optional?
> >
> > Not sure we would like to educate Lisp programmers to stop
> > thinking about good doc strings.
> 
> I agree.

Me too.  And definers of user-facing things, such as
defcustom and defface, do require DOC.  Other definers,
such as defconst and defvar, do not require it.

On the other hand, OP raises a real issue, I think.

I'd be in favor of (somehow) automatically having the
definer-provided DOC be augmented by a link that shows
the generic `define-minor-mode' doc, or similar.

IOW:

1. Definers should need to provide a DOC string (even if
   they can fake it with "", which is not encouraged).

2. Users of the mode should have access to the generic
   information also.  It should be sufficient that the
   DOC in the definition provides mode-specific information.
   It should not need to tell users general things about
   using a minor mode.

Re: Making DOC argument of define-minor-mode optional

[Philipp Stephani]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1182 bytes --]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> schrieb am Mi., 23. Nov. 2016 um
17:35 Uhr:

> > >> the docstring created by define-minor-mode with nil DOC is useful
> > >> and often better than what users write.
> > >> Should DOC therefore be optional?
> > >
> > > Not sure we would like to educate Lisp programmers to stop
> > > thinking about good doc strings.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> Me too.  And definers of user-facing things, such as
> defcustom and defface, do require DOC.  Other definers,
> such as defconst and defvar, do not require it.
>
> On the other hand, OP raises a real issue, I think.
>
> I'd be in favor of (somehow) automatically having the
> definer-provided DOC be augmented by a link that shows
> the generic `define-minor-mode' doc, or similar.
>
> IOW:
>
> 1. Definers should need to provide a DOC string (even if
>    they can fake it with "", which is not encouraged).
>
> 2. Users of the mode should have access to the generic
>    information also.  It should be sufficient that the
>    DOC in the definition provides mode-specific information.
>    It should not need to tell users general things about
>    using a minor mode.
>

That sounds like a good approach.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2149 bytes --]

Re: Making DOC argument of define-minor-mode optional

[Philipp Stephani]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1994 bytes --]

Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2@gmail.com> schrieb am So., 27. Nov. 2016 um
22:13 Uhr:

> Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> schrieb am Mi., 23. Nov. 2016 um
> 17:35 Uhr:
>
> > >> the docstring created by define-minor-mode with nil DOC is useful
> > >> and often better than what users write.
> > >> Should DOC therefore be optional?
> > >
> > > Not sure we would like to educate Lisp programmers to stop
> > > thinking about good doc strings.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> Me too.  And definers of user-facing things, such as
> defcustom and defface, do require DOC.  Other definers,
> such as defconst and defvar, do not require it.
>
> On the other hand, OP raises a real issue, I think.
>
> I'd be in favor of (somehow) automatically having the
> definer-provided DOC be augmented by a link that shows
> the generic `define-minor-mode' doc, or similar.
>
> IOW:
>
> 1. Definers should need to provide a DOC string (even if
>    they can fake it with "", which is not encouraged).
>
> 2. Users of the mode should have access to the generic
>    information also.  It should be sufficient that the
>    DOC in the definition provides mode-specific information.
>    It should not need to tell users general things about
>    using a minor mode.
>
>
> That sounds like a good approach.
>

Do you have a good idea how to design the interface for this? I was
thinking about something like this: Create a new help type, "mode",
analogous to "variable" and "function". The documentation for the mode
would be different from the toggle command and the mode variable, which
would get a generic docstring. C-h o and C-h m would show the mode
docstring instead of the toggle command docstring. The mode docstring would
contain only a description of the mode itself, not the toggle command.
The primary downside is that many mode docstrings are written to be
applicable to the toggle command. Maybe `define-minor-mode' could grow a
:doc keyword argument for the mode docstring to preserve backward
compatibility.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3503 bytes --]

RE: Making DOC argument of define-minor-mode optional

[Drew Adams]

[It's hard for me to follow the non plain-text messages you
send.  In this case, it's not clear whom you are responding
to, and to whom you are asking the question.  My part of the
thread was two quotes back - dunno who replied to me with
"That sounds like a good approach", to which you are replying.]

>> I'd be in favor of (somehow) automatically having the
>> definer-provided DOC be augmented by a link that shows
>> the generic `define-minor-mode' doc, or similar.
>> 
>> IOW:
>> 
>> 1. Definers should need to provide a DOC string (even if
>>    they can fake it with "", which is not encouraged).
>> 
>> 2. Users of the mode should have access to the generic
>>    information also.  It should be sufficient that the
>>    DOC in the definition provides mode-specific information.
>>    It should not need to tell users general things about
>>    using a minor mode.
> 
> Do you have a good idea how to design the interface for this?

I don't have an idea about the implementation; sorry.

> I was thinking about something like this: Create a new help
> type, "mode", analogous to "variable" and "function". The
> documentation for the mode would be different from the toggle
> command and the mode variable, which would get a generic
> docstring. C-h o and C-h m would show the mode docstring
> instead of the toggle command docstring. The mode docstring
> would contain only a description of the mode itself, not the
> toggle command.
> 
> The primary downside is that many mode docstrings are written
> to be applicable to the toggle command. Maybe `define-minor-mode'
> could grow a :doc keyword argument for the mode docstring to
> preserve backward compatibility.

I do think that the doc for a minor mode should be accessible
in the same way as for other functions by a user: `C-h f'.
(It is also available from `C-h m'.)

I don't think the "toggle command" should get a different
doc string.  In particular, it should not get only the
generic minor-mode doc string (e.g. how to toggle).  It
should, as now, describe the mode.  And a user should not
need to use a different key sequence to get different
bits of the relevant doc.

What I was suggesting was a bit the other way around:
have the specific mode doc have a link to generic doc
about toggling etc.  Alternatively, include the generic
text (no link to it), with an indication that it is what
it is: description of the behavior of any minor mode.