[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Adding a few more finder keywords
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: Adding a few more finder keywords |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Jun 2015 10:19:36 -0700 (PDT) |
> > If you need something new, then add something new. Don't
> > compromise existing constructs that others have been happily
> > using in ways you don't approve of or cannot make use of.
> > Share the road.
>
> It seems that a misunderstanding lead you to believe that someone is
> enforcing something. I ensure you that this isn't so. There will
> never be a warning unless the package author specifically runs an
> interactive command because he wants to check if his package will
> generate a warning.
Whether it's a package author or another user, s?he should not
be asking for a test of whether `Keywords:' contains unrecognized
keywords. S?he should be asking whether some other, new,
package.el-specific field contains unrecognized keywords.
That's the point. There is no sense in a package author or anyone
else looking to see whether `Keywords:' is "proper". Doing what
you suggest will only encourage package authors to restrict
`Keywords:' to "proper" keywords. That is misguided, is what I
am arguing.
On the other hand, it is entirely useful for package authors to
check for unrecognized package keywords. That checking should
not be done against `Keywords:'. That's all.
The feature you want to provide is something I've already said
I am in favor of. The need for package authors to check for
unrecognized package keywords is a real need. And a warning
when a package author checks for that is entirely appropriate.
Your new feature will be a welcome addition.
What you do not seem to get is that it is not `Keywords:' that
you and package authors should be using for this. That's all.
> Inventing a new section is an option, but it's a cumbersome
Tough tiddlywinks. Others got there before you.
That part of the prairie has already been settled. If you want
to live there too, then live by the same wild-west rules as the
longtime inhabitants. No one has asked for a new sheriff with
new rules. You might find this locale dirty, messy, chaotic,
and confusing. But that's what the settlers of `Keywords:'
had in mind, and that's they way they've developed it. Think
Rio de Janeiro, not Brasilia. This is not virgin territory.
> and unnecessary path.
It's not unnecessary. It's necessary, if you (as I do) want
to preserve `Keywords:' for what it's been all along: a place
for arbitrary keywords, invented by anyone, for any purpose
whatsoever.
> I can have what I want with just `Keywords:' without imposing
> anything on anyone,
In my book, discouraging and warning people about "improper"
keywords in `Keywords:' is imposing. That kind of policing (or
kindly "suggesting") does not belong in `Keywords:'. Please
take it elsewhere. That's all I'm asking.
> possibly offering a guideline through a separate checkdoc utility
> that so far comes disabled by default.
All well and good. Just please take it elsewhere from `Keywords:'.
- RE: Adding a few more finder keywords, (continued)
- Re: Adding a few more finder keywords, Stefan Monnier, 2015/06/08
- RE: Adding a few more finder keywords, Drew Adams, 2015/06/09
- Re: Adding a few more finder keywords, Oleh Krehel, 2015/06/09
- RE: Adding a few more finder keywords, Drew Adams, 2015/06/09
- Re: Adding a few more finder keywords, Oleh Krehel, 2015/06/09
- RE: Adding a few more finder keywords,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: Adding a few more finder keywords, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/06/09