[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Explicit encoding cookie in Elisp files Add prettify-symbols-alist f

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: Explicit encoding cookie in Elisp files Add prettify-symbols-alist for js-mode
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:53:32 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:41.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/41.0

On 09/28/2015 10:27 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

Fine with me.  Although it definitely narrows the applicability of
that suggestion, because the issue is not necessarily "using" the
files, but even visiting them with an older version.

Yes, that is the exact distinction. Has it caused you a tangible amount of hassle over the years?


And the latter
happens, at least to me, quite a lot, e.g. when I need to look at
those files on a system where only an older Emacs is installed or

Hopefully, that will occur less and less. 24.4 will soon be a year old.

And again, it's just a suggestion, not a requirement.  We already have
similar language elsewhere in CONTRIBUTE, for example:

   - There is no need to mention files such as NEWS, MAINTAINERS, and
     FOR-RELEASE, or to indicate regeneration of files such as
     'configure', in the ChangeLog entry.  "There is no need" means you
     don't have to, but you can if you want to.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's okay to not behave according to such suggestions: that's why they
are worded as non-mandatory suggestions.  Why such strong opposition?

That suggestion makes it clear that the choice is irrelevant.

And change log guidelines are in a bit different position than source code guidelines: it's perfectly possible for two different developers to work on the same code while keeping to their respective change log preferences.

I don't mind having a difference in opinion, if you don't object to
reverting db828f6.

Sigh.  Revert it if you must.  But see below for why I think that's a
desire I don't understand, unless you have some problem with my
commits specifically.

Just that one particular commit.

Did you see how many of our Lisp files already have the cookie that
states UTF-8 encoding?  (Answer: 197.)  Moreover, various features
that generate *.el files automatically insert the cookie there, see
autoload.el and ido.el for just 2 examples.  Did this bother you, or
anyone else, until now?

I wasn't actively aware of that, but I imagine a lot of them come from before Emacs 24.4 (both files and generation scripts).

If it's inconsistency you dislike, I can commit to spend the effort and remove the cookies where they're not strictly required, if you like.

So why did that single commit, which added a
cookie to 3 more files, for a 1.5% growth, suddenly bother you?  I
just did what we have been doing for many years, something that was
burned into my muscle memory during all those years.

Imagine that we added a new syntax feature to Elisp, used it for over a year from time to time in some new code, and them one of the developers "desugared" all its uses into more verbose code that's compatible with older Emacsen. The present situation is not as absurd, but that's the direction I'm looking at it from.

IOW, don't you see how this minuscule issue is blown out of
proportions for reasons I cannot even begin to understand?  And why do
you single out only those 3 files, but say nothing about the others?
If you really dislike those cookies so much, I'd expect you to first
realize the magnitude of the "problem", and then attack it
consistently across the board, rather than pouncing on my single

We also have lots of compilation warnings, non-idiomatic (or just somewhat obsolete) uses of Elisp in different places, and other similar problems, for which there's not enough manpower/enthusiasm to fix.

I'd prefer not to exacerbate any of them. But like I said, my issue is not with individual cookies, but with the strong suggestion to add them everywhere UTF-8 is used.

reply via email to

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