[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#19178: closed (Re: bug#19178: 11.88; 11.88 Xemacs 11.88 problem with

From: Mosè Giordano
Subject: bug#19178: closed (Re: bug#19178: 11.88; 11.88 Xemacs 11.88 problem with env and labels)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:49:46 +0100

> -            ""))))
> +            ""))
> +         ((nullp type)
> +          "")))

Sorry, I meant nil instead of ""

2014-11-26 19:45 GMT+01:00 Mosè Giordano <address@hidden>:
> 2014-11-26 12:57 GMT+01:00 Uwe Brauer <address@hidden>:
>> Hi Mosè
>>    > Hi Uwe,
>>    > 2014-11-25 18:48 GMT+01:00 Uwe Brauer <address@hidden>:
>>    > I agree backward compatibility should be preserved as long as possible
>>    > (but not at any cost), but about what?  Most users only customize
>>    > variables, don't fiddle with functions, if they write some elisp we
>>    > hope they're also able to read the doc string of a function and see
>>    > which are its arguments, if they've been changed.  But please consider
>>    > the first version of a program (nor the second, the third, and so on)
>>    > is not perfect, when you develop it you arrive at a point in which you
>>    > must choose between keeping it bugged/broken, and fix it and break
>>    > compatibility (or fork it).
>> My point is the following: if you improve a function or variable by
>> adding more options it should be done, in my opinion, in way the user
>> has not to change his old settings.
>>    > Regarding the change to `LaTeX-label', the whole point of it was to
>>    > let users choose to which environments label should be inserted.  The
>>    > addition of the second argument was needed to discriminate between
>>    > environments and sections as suggested by Vladimir.
>> I don't want to start this discussion again, since  I also use reftex,
>> my labels look typically
>>   \label{rem:fixpoint-scheme:2}
>> Meaning that this  is the second remark in the file called fixpoint-scheme. 
>> For
>> me this is enough I wouldn't need to add more information like the one
>> concerning the section, but I understand there are users with other needs.
>>    > Defaulting `prefix' to an empty string when no type is provided (in
>>    > order to make this argument optional) would defeat the whole
>>    > purpose of the change. Only defaulting `prefix' to nil wouldn't
>>    > break old codes using `LateX-label' function, but keeping the
>>    > second argument mandatory helps users be aware of the change of the
>>    > syntax of `LaTeX-label'.
>> I had a look at the code and it is really a complete rewrite. From my
>> philosophical  point of view, the "appropriate" approach would have been
>> to leave the second argument optionally not mandatory, and a user
>> interested in this enhancement could consult the documentation and not
>> the other way around: that the long-term-user gets an error and presumes
>> a bug.
>> Something like this.
>> (defun LaTeX-label (name &optional type)
>>    > Moral: I'm not going to change `LaTeX-label'.
>> Would you accept an (ugly) patch? (Also the changes that I do this any
>> time soon are  unlikely due to my workload and other priorities, such as
>> the xemacs pkg sync.)
> See the attached patch: this makes second argument optional but
> doesn't change the spirit of LaTeX-label.
> Bye,
> Mosè

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]