Re: use-package has been merged into emacs-29

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:

> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> That does make sense, but I believe to have had found instances where
>> this was not the case.  I'll try and see if I can locate those again.
>
> That will be appreciated, thanks.

I have taken a look again, and it appears I was mistaken.  That being
said, there are still a few places where I think it is not clear if
talking about the macro or the package would be correct.  E.g. compare
these two excerpts that refer to use package and a keyword:

                                                  With use-package, you
  can simplify this using the @code{:bind} keyword, as described in this
  section.

and

  @code{use-package} supports this with a @code{:map} modifier,
  taking the local keymap to bind to:

Both readings make sense, but the manual is talking about two different
things (to be fair: with a major overlap).

>> Also, this ties into the other point about the usage of @file.
>> Shouldn't the first case be wrapped in @file?
>
> I don't think we do that elsewhere, do we?  See e.g. eshell.texi or
> eglot.texi.
>
> My understanding is that it's "use-package" when referring to the
> package as a whole, "@file{use-package}" when referring to the library
> (i.e. use-package.el), and "@code{use-package}" when referring to the
> macro by that name.

Nevermind this, I see that there is only a single instance of
"@file{use-package}" left now, and it makes sense (it refers to the file
being loaded).