Re: use-package has been merged into emacs-29

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
> Cc: stefankangas@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org,  johnw@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 17:06:02 +0000
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > What is the problem with "see @ref"?
> 
> If you are asking, I am assuming I am wrong.  My assumption was that
> @pxref was preferable.

It is preferable when the cross-reference ends in a closing
parenthesis.  The case you are referring to has more text after the
cross-reference and before the closing parenthesis, right?

> > Thanks, but there's no need to post such comments: just go ahead and
> > fix what needs to be fixed.  People who work on these changes are not
> > angels: we make mistakes, and appreciate when others silently fix them
> > when they spot them.
> 
> I am sorry if my comments had a negative tone -- I am certainly no
> texinfo expert, so I'd rather discuss the questions before applying any
> changes.

You can consider yourself an expert, since you've uncovered the
problems and inconsistencies.

> >> - Some packages are formatted as @file's (hydra, ivy, diminish, delight,
> >>   ...).  Does this really make sense?
> >
> > A package is usually a file, so @file is correct.  But sometimes the
> > context is talking about a feature, and then @code or @samp is better.
> 
> I have also noticed there are a few instances of @file{<...>.el} vs
> @file{<...>}.  Perhaps it makes sense to use @file when referring to the
> packages as file names, and @code/@samp when referring to the package
> name (if at all -- just like with my question whether use-package should
> be formatted or not).

That was more or less what I tried to do.  But maybe I missed a few
places -- it's a large manual.