From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Resources for an old newbie ? Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2023 18:35:50 +0200 Message-ID: <87fs747dll.fsf@dataswamp.org> References: <87ilch19ub.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87cz2nvk51.fsf@web.de> <87v8gfybhv.fsf@robbyzambito.me> <87zg5p5hm0.fsf@web.de> <875y8a698v.fsf@web.de> <875y89z9m7.fsf@dataswamp.org> <83fs777q9m.fsf@gnu.org> <87y1kz7bpf.fsf@dataswamp.org> <87cz2asqen.fsf@web.de> <873536sjfq.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="26066"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:K8uZa9kdQ669OW2C+kaCHh2Sq/E= Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 10 20:43:24 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1q83Ya-0006dP-Mf for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 10 Jun 2023 20:43:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1q83YJ-0004Oa-9z; Sat, 10 Jun 2023 14:43:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1q6ZfD-0000zN-4s for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2023 12:36:07 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1q6Zf8-0005PL-Ru for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2023 12:36:06 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1q6Zf5-0003IG-Bs for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2023 18:35:59 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Mail-Copies-To: never Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 10 Jun 2023 14:43:04 -0400 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:143911 Archived-At: Michael Heerdegen wrote: >> I think it was something about docstring width. >> >> But I've spent too much time on this. > > Don't want to suggest which Emacs version to use - but for > your private stuff, you can just ignore those warnings about > docstrings (or just turn them off, locally). You have no > disadvantages to fear when using that code with the new > Emacs version. The compiler warnings just have been > improved, there are more checks. No kidding, but there should be a clear line what warnings are considered unimportant and maybe people don't care to get rid of them. Warnings should only be when there is a WARNING not trying to enforce some convention or habit for no real practical reason, also bugs are often introduced when fixing bugs, so one shouldn't "overfix" them. I'm saying this just generally, with no real understanding what warning makes sense to have and what doesn't. But bugs one understands very well can be fun to fix, but it is just because using Emacs is fun. The right way if one assumed "unlimited resources for the cause", someone would write a byte-compiler that didn't echo trivial warnings, instead it would change the source automatically into the prefered form unless one said no, in what case nothing would happen. That wouldn't even be AI - it would be better - because it would be compiler design, obviously fixing docstrings can't be compared to that - unless the compiler fixes the docstrings, maybe. And after that maybe one could merge AI and compiler design ... -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal