From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eric Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Improving browsing and discoverability in the Packages Menu Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:04:27 +0800 Message-ID: <87lhhlam3o.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <871tjgj010.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <7b3b0d19-01d4-4f97-b85e-19383bee5605@default> <87twwbdwjd.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87d22zcde3.fsf@gmail.com> <60cf8797-6524-4bf3-8ff5-b8a74736eff6@default> <87zj62unvk.fsf@gnu.org> <87lhhmgeht.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1429607101 32572 80.91.229.3 (21 Apr 2015 09:05:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:05:01 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 21 11:04:53 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YkU6r-00057f-RC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:04:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56898 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YkU6q-00019d-Vk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 05:04:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34547) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YkU6m-00019X-NE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 05:04:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YkU6i-0001gZ-JV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 05:04:44 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:57250) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YkU6i-0001dN-D4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 05:04:40 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YkU6d-00050E-UE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:04:36 +0200 Original-Received: from 114.248.29.176 ([114.248.29.176]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:04:35 +0200 Original-Received: from eric by 114.248.29.176 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:04:35 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 45 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 114.248.29.176 User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:aMZgrdXCFPv72XIAkyqSidyLQmI= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:185744 Archived-At: Tassilo Horn writes: > Drew Adams writes: > >>> If it were intended by the package author, where is the problem of >>> adding >>> ;; byte-compile-warnings: (not unknown-keyword) >>> to the package's local variables section? >> >> So to some file written by someone somewhere somewhen, perhaps quite >> some time ago, you say: "All ya gotta do is jump through this leetle >> hoop here." > > Yes, exactly. Because if it is available via ELPA, MELPA, or some other > package archive, then it seems to be actively maintained. And in the > very unlikely case that the author/maintainer insists on "modeline" > instead of "mode-line", she can jump through the little hoop. > > BTW, an `unknown-keyword' warning was not really what I meant in my > previous reply. Of course, package.el cannot know all sensible > keywords, so it should work with any keyword. But in the case of > keywords that are likely just synonyms or typos of some commonly used > keyword (modeline vs. mode-line), it could suggest the commonly used one > for achieving a bit standardization. > >>> And I'm pretty sure you won't see any occurrence of >>> ;; Keywords: modeline, electronic mail >>> ;; Package Keywords: mode-line, email >>> even if there was a new field. >> >> Sorry, I didn't catch your last point. Perhaps you mean to say that >> `Keywords' will disappear? All the kids will run to play in the new >> sandbox? > > No, what I've meant to say is that when a maintainer adds the new > `Package Keywords' header duplicating the existing `Keywords' header and > then sees that byte-compilation suggests to use the more commonly used > "mode-line" and "email" instead of "modeline" and "electronic mail", why > should she change only `Package Keywords` accordingly and not > `Keywords', too? (Assuming that she agrees that "mode-line" and "email" > express what she intended to express, too.) If we go this route I humbly suggest Package Category (or just Category) as an alternative. It's not as immediately confusable with "keyword", and I think semantically speaking pairs with it quite nicely.