bug#59937: 28.2; Bad defcustom behavior

[Drew Adams]

>  > Expecting a defcustom definer to understand this
>  > and figure out what a "valid default value for
>  > the restricted-sexp widget" might be, is a bridge
>  > too far, IMO.
> 
> I don't think so.  The defcustom definer is specifying the matching
> alternatives, he/she should be able to think of a valid default
> value.

How does s?he define/provide a default value for the
`restricted-sexp' widget?  I see no way to do that.

Or did you mean that s?he should always provide, within
the _option's_ default value, a value for each part of
it that corresponds to a `restricted-sexp'?

That would be too restrictive, IMO.  It should still
be possible to provide a default value of () for an
alist or plist that makes use of `restricted-sexp' for
some element keys or values.  Or a default value that
in some other way doesn't provide a value for parts
that are defined by `restricted-sexp' but might not be
needed in the option value.

> Maybe having some examples in the documentation could help here. I
> could write one if you and others think it could be helpful.

I _think_ I understand this now.  The problem is that for
the Customize UI to present a field for inputting/defining
the part of the option value that corresponds to a plist
key (which is defined by a `restricted-sexp'), it needs to
know just what kind of input/edit widget to build.  It
needs to build an editable-field that also demands respect
of the `restricted-sexp' predicates.

And that's the case whether or not the _option's_ default
value has a part that corresponds to a plist key.  (If yes,
the default value must match the `restricted-sexp', if no,
you're prompted for the sexp type, so it knows what kind
of field to make.)

And yes, a simple example with `restricted-sexp' would
help (maybe 2 examples: bad & good).

The idea/problem isn't limited to `restricted-sexp', IIUC.
But in other cases it's much less likely to be a gotcha,
because the parts of the defcustom value that correspond
to each field in the Customize UI will have types that
correspond to existing widgets (they don't require
additional input/prompting to know what kind of UI field
to create).

The problem really stems, I guess, from the fact that
`restricted-sexp' can involve any kinds of predicates,
and depending on what those do, the UI field can be
different.  Put differently, the UI field takes into
account the `restricted-sexp' predicates.  But the
prompting does not take them into account!

My thoughts about this - let me know what you think:

1. The warning(s) are not very helpful.  They will
mainly confuse, I think.

First, end users _will_ see them, as the defcustom
author may not have tested every possibility well.

Second, many defcustom authors also won't understand
them.

2. I think a big improvement could be to make use of
any :tag that the defcustom author provides for the
`restricted-sexp' field - using the :tag also as the
prompt, instead of "Lisp expression: ".  When you see
that generic prompt you have _no clue_ what it wants,
or why.  The :tag should tell you what to enter.

In the case used in the bug example, the :tag is
"Plist key (keyword):".  With that as prompt there's
little possible misunderstanding of what we're asking
the user to enter.  (And if the :tag isn't clear then
it also isn't very clear when used as a field label,
though someone might figure it out from UI context.)

And if the user enters a value that doesn't satisfy
the `restricted-sexp' predicates we can still raise
an error.

Better yet would be to put the sexp prompt in a loop
till the input (after `read-from-string') satisfies
the `restricted-sexp' predicates (or until C-g).

IOW, don't just use `widget-sexp-prompt-value' (it
just gets a string and then Lisp-reads that), but
also apply the predicates as part of the expression
reading.  That is, provide the same behavior/support
we provide for the UI input field.

3. Don't show any warning when prompting.  Just try
to have the inputting itself be clearer (#2).

With those changes, the manual could also be improved:

(1) Tell defcustom definers that if they use
`restricted-sexp' then good practice is to provide a
:tag for the field.  And tell them that the :tag will
also be used as a prompt for creating the appropriate
editable field.

Tell them that otherwise the prompt is just "Lisp
expression: ", which makes no semantic connection to
the type of data needed for the field.

If a defcustom definer is defining a complex option
then it behooves them to make clear what the parts
are.  And if a part is based on `restricted-sexp'
then part of making that clear is to add a :tag.

(2) Explain that such prompting happens whenever the
default value of the option doesn't provide a value
for each of its parts that corresponds to the use of
a `restricted-sexp'.

So if the default value does provide all such parts
then there's no prompting (and the need for a :tag
is reduced).

>  > I am curious whether you think there's actually
>  > a bug or not.  It's hard for me to believe that
>  > we should expect _anyone_ defining a defcustom
>  > (let alone anyone using Customize) to understand
>  > the `restricted-sexp' widget, what it requires
>  > wrt its "default value", and how to adjust a
>  > defcustom to give it what it needs, to DTRT.
> 
> I think a better behavior would be to avoid the prompting altogether
> (there should be no prompt at that moment, for starters).  But again,
> this situation arises when there is a bug on the defcustom :type, so I'd
> be happier if people can help with improving the warning message.

See above.

I don't think there's a bug in the defcustoms in
the examples shown.  And I do think users should be
prompted if Emacs needs to know what kind of input
(UI) field to create.  And I don't think we should
show any warnings.  We can raise an error if the
user input is, in the end, invalid (and I think we
already take care of that).

I may still be misunderstanding things.  Let me
know.  But if so then I'm guessing others will also
misunderstand.  The current state is, I think, poor
support for the flexible, powerful feature that is
`restricted-sexp'.  Understandable, but we should
somehow try to do better.

I, for one, wish more definers of defcustoms spent
more time defining tighter types.  And often that
could mean using `restricted-sexp'.

FWIW, this bug report came directly from a user
question on emacs.SE, here:

https://emacs.stackexchange.com/q/74913

Thanks for your efforts with this.