Re: master 72b1379f079: Increase `emacs-lisp-docstring-fill-column` to 72

[Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>]

Adam Porter <adam@alphapapa.net> writes:

> That's probably true, but it would be hard to quantify that.  As well,
> as I said, it's apples-and-oranges between a workflow involving key
> sequences and a display format.
>
> As I said, the only potential problem I can imagine is a user who's
> heavily customized the window configuration or display-buffer-alist so
> that docstring-showing windows are precisely 64 characters
> wide. Inconveniencing them would be regrettable to some extent, but
> enough to not change the value?

Where the twenty year old default value of a variable is concerned, the
decision is not whether to retain the old value but whether to change
it.

> I'm not sure what you mean.  I don't think my stance is absolute;
> rather, it's more that we should use good judgment in each case rather
> than a set of rules.

I meant that you implied the existence of a binary choice between a vote
among all users and relying on the completely arbitrary judgment of one
person.

> Ok, but where should the line be drawn between allowing maintainers to
> make such minor changes according to their judgment, and requiring
> some arbitrary amount of discussion beforehand?  What if the
> maintainers' judgment is that sufficient discussion has happened?

I don't think it's wise to enter into a dispute on the extent to which
relativism applies to Emacs, since most of my premises are accepted by
everyone involved, specifically in relation to this change.  Namely that
there should be a rationale and opportunity for comment, references to
both of which figured in the commit description.  My problem is that any
reasonable person will agree that the discussion linked was not in the
least productive and is too distant in time to be a suitable factor for
decision-making.

> Any decision is ultimately arbitrary, no?  Even the decision to not
> change it.

It's not a decision to do nothing.

> Weren't those formats designed decades ago?  Don't our screens have
> orders of magnitude more pixels now?  Should we be limited by those
> old limitations forever?

That's not our choice, but Texinfo's.

> I don't understand why you repeat that claim, because it's been
> mentioned several times that increasing the limit provides a tangible
> benefit.  You seem to think that that benefit is negligible, but that
> doesn't mean that it is non-existent, nor that the benefit seems
> negligible to others.

Likewise.

> I understand your procedural objection.  Besides that, is there a
> technical problem you object to?

As I said, I object to both, but to the former much more than to the
latter.
cwThanks.