Re: Regarding outline headings in emacs-lisp libraries

[Jonas Bernoulli <jonas@bernoul.li>]

Let me summarize the conversation so far:

1. I make some arguments as to why it is better for the sections that
   contain code to be top-level sections instead of sub-sections of a
   single top-level section.

   One can of course disagree with those arguments but that has not
   really happened.  Stefan stated that he ever so slightly prefers
   the nested approach but also that he is fine with either style.

2. Eli approves the change as long as we adjust the documentation and
   rename the "Code:" section to something else because if it does not
   contain all the code anymore, then keeping the old name would be a
   misnomer.

   > But after the proposed changes, almost none of the code will be
   > under "Code:", so the name will be a misnomer, no?

3. Stefan does not want to rename "Code:" to something else because it
   is the one bit that in nearly all elisp files.

   > I definitely don't want to rename "Code:" to something else.  It
   > would be a rather gratuitous change, since "Code:" is basically the
   > only section that appears in virtually all Elisp files and renaming
   > it would provide very little concrete benefits.

   Stefan also thinks that what Eli calls a "lie" is just a "very minor
   cosmetic problem".

Is that what they call a Mexican Standoff?

I think the conversation should be about whether my arguments as to
*why* we should change the recommended style are sound, but we discuss
whether "Code:" should be renamed or not.  (I tend to agree with Stefan
that it {should not / does not have to be} renamed.)  Nothing wrong with
discussing that detail, but I fear that disagreement about it is what
will ultimately derail my proposal; not disagreement about the merit of
my arguments as to why it is preferable to skip one nesting level.

     Jonas