bug#71499: [PATCH] Make whitespace.el cleanup add missing final newline

[Andrea Corallo <acorallo@gnu.org>]

Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> I thought about that, but since whitespace-cleanup generally applies
>>> clean-up according to white-space style, I thought it was simply an
>>> oversight that it doesn't apply a fix when it is set to highlight
>>> missing end-of-file newline.
>>>
>>> Adding a separate way to configure this removes the simplicity of
>>> configuring your preferred whitespace-style as a single option.
>>>
>>> However, If you still disagree I can make another patch somehow
>>> maintains the old behaviour as the default, so just let me know.
>>
>> Let's see what others think, and take it from there.
>>
>> Stefan, Andrea: WDYT about this change?
>
> AFAIU, the purpose of whitespace.el is to detect and eventually fix
> incorrect whitespace, and it has two ways of doing this:
>
> - Visual highlighting
> - Commands to fix problems (`whitespace-report` and
>   `whitespace-cleanup).
>
> Since it is mostly configured in the centralized option,
> `whitespace-style`, it seems natural that if a user wants to detect
> `missing-newline-at-eof`, she would also want this to be fixed by
> `whitespace-cleanup`.  This seems even more natural given that
> `whitespace-report` already considers that a problem worthy of
> reporting.  IOW, I tend to agree that this not already being the case
> looks like an oversight.
>
> So I think the existing options are fine, and the patch could go in
> as-is, despite the fact that it is backwards-incompatible.  If users
> really hate it, I guess we will hear about it and can react.
>
> If we want to be really cautious, we might want to consider waiting with
> this change until Emacs 31.  That should provide ample time for people
> to notice the new behaviour and react.
>
> My two cents.

I'm as well for having the patch in, but I guess would be safer in 31 so
we have plenty of time to react if needed.

  Andrea