From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jonas Bernoulli Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Regarding outline headings in emacs-lisp libraries Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 23:13:31 +0200 Message-ID: <87ime2t6h0.fsf@bernoul.li> References: <875zalolt7.fsf@bernoul.li> <87pn8fo3dg.fsf@bernoul.li> <837duiex1f.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="38939"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 01 23:16:14 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1k1yrW-000A1R-Jk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2020 23:16:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54072 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k1yrU-0004n0-Tv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2020 17:16:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42704) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k1yp1-0004Bo-Bt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2020 17:13:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.hostpark.net ([212.243.197.30]:53786) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k1yoz-0001xR-CW; Sat, 01 Aug 2020 17:13:39 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hostpark.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2FF7160BF; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:13:31 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by Hostpark/NetZone Mailprotection at hostpark.net Original-Received: from mail.hostpark.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail1.hostpark.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10124) with ESMTP id LBt0LJJ6s5nJ; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:13:31 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hostpark.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4F7E160AE; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 23:13:31 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <837duiex1f.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: none client-ip=212.243.197.30; envelope-from=jonas@bernoul.li; helo=mail.hostpark.net X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/08/01 17:13:32 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = ??? X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:253400 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Richard Stallman >> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 22:53:46 -0400 >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> I suggest we allow two ways of structuring the code into sections. >> >> 1. A single top-level section called "Code", which can have subsections. >> >> 2. Multiple top-level sections, none called just "Code", but their >> names should contain the word "Code". > > Both possibilities are fine with me. > > However, AFAIU Jonas didn't like 1, and both Stefan and Jonas didn't > like 2 (although the way 2 was discussed, we didn't consider having > "Code" in each of the top-level sections, so maybe this will make the > difference). I find that even less appealing. While I would prefer if we could just stick to "Code:", I am not fundamentally opposed to using some other name. I think we should not enforce some new standard name for the first code section. "Dependencies" would often make sense, and we could suggest that name but when it doesn't make sense, then people should be free to use something else. I have mentioned that if we don't enforce some common name for the first code section, then one could no longer determine with 100% accuracy which section is the first code section from the section headings alone. That is a bit unfortunate, but not really a big deal IMO. Stefan seems to dislike the idea of doing away with the "Code:" name more strongly than I do. Maybe we could grandfather that name as a compromise? I.e. existing libraries could keep using "Code:" but new libraries and when splitting up an existing library into sections for the first time, then some other name should be picked. Peace, Jonas