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

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org,  John Wiegley <johnw@gnu.org>
>> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 16:09:24 +0000
>> 
>> - There is still an instance of "see @ref" under the node "Global
>>   keybindings".
>
> What is the problem with "see @ref"?

If you are asking, I am assuming I am wrong.  My assumption was that
@pxref was preferable.

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org,  John Wiegley <johnw@gnu.org>
>> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 16:09:24 +0000
>> 
>> A few comments on use-package.texi from briefly skimming the file:
>
> 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.

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org,  John Wiegley <johnw@gnu.org>
>> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 16:09:24 +0000
>> 
>> - 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).