bug#34678: 26.1; (elisp) `Minor Mode Conventions'

bug#34678: 26.1; (elisp) `Minor Mode Conventions'

[Drew Adams]

> > > I don't see why: cross-references don't have to be symmetrical.
> >
> > Did someone say that cross-references have to be
> > symmetrical?
> >
> > > We refer to another node for details of something mentioned in
> > > passage, but that other node doesn't have to provide a
> > > cross-reference back.
> >
> > Did someone say that it had to?
> 
> You went a long way towards saying that, yes.  How else
> to interpret your amplification of the original report?

Maybe read what I write, instead of reading
between the lines?

"It also wouldn't hurt to..." and "Perhaps add a
mention..." are nothing like claiming that a cross
reference (let alone every such) from A to B _must_
be accompanied by a cross reference from B to A.

That's a straw man - no one (except you) mentioned
such a rule.

bug#34678: 26.1; (elisp) `Minor Mode Conventions'

[Drew Adams]

> > It also wouldn't hurt to add a reference to node
> > `Minor Mode Conventions' from node `Major Mode
> > Conventions'.
> >
> > Perhaps add a mention in node `Major Mode Conventions'
> > similar to this one in (elisp) `Minor Mode Conventions':
> >
> >   In addition, several major mode conventions
> >   apply to minor modes as well: those regarding
> >   the names of global symbols, the use of a hook
> >   at the end of the initialization function, and
> >   the use of keymaps and other tables.
> 
> I don't see why: cross-references don't have to be symmetrical.

Did someone say that cross-references have to be
symmetrical?

> We refer to another node for details of something mentioned in passage,
> but that other node doesn't have to provide a cross-reference back.

Did someone say that it had to?

bug#34678: 26.1; (elisp) `Minor Mode Conventions'

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:22:40 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: 34678@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > I don't see why: cross-references don't have to be symmetrical.
> 
> Did someone say that cross-references have to be
> symmetrical?
> 
> > We refer to another node for details of something mentioned in passage,
> > but that other node doesn't have to provide a cross-reference back.
> 
> Did someone say that it had to?

You went a long way towards saying that, yes.  How else to interpret
your amplification of the original report?

bug#34678: 26.1; (elisp) `Minor Mode Conventions'

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > > I don't see why: cross-references don't have to be symmetrical.

  > Did someone say that cross-references have to be
  > symmetrical?

That point seems to be valid, but "Did someone say that XYZ" attaches
a somewhat aggressive tone to any point.  This point could have been
stated more kindly, like this

  There's no reason for them to be symmetrical in general, but I think
  it would be good in this case to have a reference in the other direction.

On the general issue, rather than arguing with the claim that someone
disagreed, this approach agrees.  Then it leads the discussion out of
the tangent and back to the specific question at hand.

Please read https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication-guidelines.html
if you haven't read it recently.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

bug#34678: 26.1; (elisp) `Minor Mode Conventions'

[Noam Postavsky]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Please read https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication-guidelines.html
> if you haven't read it recently.

The correct URL seems to be
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html

bug#34678: 26.1; (elisp) `Minor Mode Conventions'

[Drew Adams]

At two places this node refers to the conventions for major modes, but
there is no link to the doc about major-mode conventions.  Please add a
link where one or the other reference is made.

In GNU Emacs 26.1 (build 1, x86_64-w64-mingw32)
 of 2018-05-30
Repository revision: 07f8f9bc5a51f5aa94eb099f3e15fbe0c20ea1ea
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 10.0.17134
Configured using:
 `configure --without-dbus --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32
 --without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-O2 -static -g3''

bug#34678: 26.1; (elisp) `Minor Mode Conventions'

[Drew Adams]

It also wouldn't hurt to add a reference to node
`Minor Mode Conventions' from node `Major Mode
Conventions'.

Perhaps add a mention in node `Major Mode Conventions'
similar to this one in (elisp) `Minor Mode Conventions':

  In addition, several major mode conventions
  apply to minor modes as well: those regarding
  the names of global symbols, the use of a hook
  at the end of the initialization function, and
  the use of keymaps and other tables.

bug#34678: 26.1; (elisp) `Minor Mode Conventions'

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:09:27 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> 
> It also wouldn't hurt to add a reference to node
> `Minor Mode Conventions' from node `Major Mode
> Conventions'.
> 
> Perhaps add a mention in node `Major Mode Conventions'
> similar to this one in (elisp) `Minor Mode Conventions':
> 
>   In addition, several major mode conventions
>   apply to minor modes as well: those regarding
>   the names of global symbols, the use of a hook
>   at the end of the initialization function, and
>   the use of keymaps and other tables.

I don't see why: cross-references don't have to be symmetrical.  We
refer to another node for details of something mentioned in passage,
but that other node doesn't have to provide a cross-reference back.

bug#34678: 26.1; (elisp) `Minor Mode Conventions'

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 10:56:35 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> 
> At two places this node refers to the conventions for major modes, but
> there is no link to the doc about major-mode conventions.  Please add a
> link where one or the other reference is made.

Thanks, added.