Re: [Bug-AUCTeX] font-latex-user-keyword-classes doc

[Ralf Angeli]

* David Kastrup (2007-10-03) writes:

> Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> * David Kastrup (2007-10-03) writes:
>>
>>> Hm? Just explaining the available semantics by referring to the actual
>>> values is not actually doing anything different.  While I agree that
>>> one can use such a customize-only explanation in the manual, I think
>>> that the DOC string for a variable should help with understanding the
>>> code, not just the customization.
>>
>> The doc string shows up in the customization buffer.  And that's where I
>> wanted to have a description for the user, not the developer.  I could
>> perhaps as a compromise add the developer-aimed documentation as a
>> comment to the defcustom code.
>
> It is not going to help the developer using C-h v when looking at the
> code using the variable.  Nobody is interested in the source code of
> the defcustom or would think of looking there for the relevant
> information.

Okay, I've added technical details.  The result is rather obnoxious and
I am thinking of yanking the changes out again.  Or splitting it into
sections like "Adaptation through Customize interface" and "Technical
details".  The point here is really that the variable is a user-level
facility which should not be configured through `setq' and some such
because it is simply too complicated, especially when font specifiers
are to be used.  Dealing with the variable on a technical level is only
useful when hacking font-latex.el.

-- 
Ralf