Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 9145e79: * lisp/files.el: Don't allow customization of dir-locals sorting

Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 9145e79: * lisp/files.el: Don't allow customization of dir-locals sorting

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com> writes:

>     In retrospect, this is not a good idea for the same reason that
>     `dir-locals-file' is a defconst, because it is important that this
>     behaviour be "uniform across different environments and users".
>     Sure, the user can still change the sorting with a hack, but we
>     shouldn't encourage them to change it.

I'm inclined to agree with this; but did you mention it to Eli also, who had
suggested using version<? I think string< is the right behavior, but since we
had discussed it, I'd like to hear from him too.

John

Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 9145e79: * lisp/files.el: Don't allow customization of dir-locals sorting

[Artur Malabarba]

John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm inclined to agree with this; but did you mention it to Eli also, who had
> suggested using version<? I think string< is the right behavior, but since we
> had discussed it, I'd like to hear from him too.
>

Sure. I only really realised this after reading the docstring for `dir-locals-file'.

Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 9145e79: * lisp/files.el: Don't allow customization of dir-locals sorting

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com>
> Cc: Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 06:16:00 -0800
> 
> >>>>> Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >     In retrospect, this is not a good idea for the same reason that
> >     `dir-locals-file' is a defconst, because it is important that this
> >     behaviour be "uniform across different environments and users".
> >     Sure, the user can still change the sorting with a hack, but we
> >     shouldn't encourage them to change it.
> 
> I'm inclined to agree with this; but did you mention it to Eli also, who had
> suggested using version<? I think string< is the right behavior, but since we
> had discussed it, I'd like to hear from him too.

I didn't suggest using version<, at least not directly.  I said that
if people who use Unix startup scripts are used to this order, I have
no objection to using string< in our similar features.

Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 9145e79: * lisp/files.el: Don't allow customization of dir-locals sorting

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> I'm inclined to agree with this; but did you mention it to Eli also, who
>> had suggested using version<? I think string< is the right behavior, but
>> since we had discussed it, I'd like to hear from him too.

> I didn't suggest using version<, at least not directly. I said that if
> people who use Unix startup scripts are used to this order, I have no
> objection to using string< in our similar features.

Ah, OK, then the change is good.

John

Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 9145e79: * lisp/files.el: Don't allow customization of dir-locals sorting

[Juri Linkov]

>>     In retrospect, this is not a good idea for the same reason that
>>     `dir-locals-file' is a defconst, because it is important that this
>>     behaviour be "uniform across different environments and users".
>>     Sure, the user can still change the sorting with a hack, but we
>>     shouldn't encourage them to change it.
>
> I'm inclined to agree with this; but did you mention it to Eli also, who had
> suggested using version<? I think string< is the right behavior, but since we
> had discussed it, I'd like to hear from him too.

As long as we implement the same globbing as shells do,
I agree that string< is more appropriate than version<.