[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: master e4896fc 1/2: Add a new 'flex' completion style

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: master e4896fc 1/2: Add a new 'flex' completion style
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:37:49 +0200

> From: João Távora <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:50:15 +0000
> Cc: emacs-devel <address@hidden>
> > Iʼm all in favour of respect, but what does that mean in the context
> > of PRED and POINT?
> It means M-x checkdoc shuts up about it, that's what it means :-)
> (or rather flymake's checkdoc backend stops underlining it).
> It also means I'll think twice about adding docstrings to functions
> I modify, even internal functions.
> > What is 'PCM-style'? What does 'massaged' mean? What is the signature of
> "It be" take a pattern, and it be return a pattern.
> To be clear, I agree this isn't the best docstring in the world. Is it
> better than what was before, which was nothing?  Perhaps that's
> arguable and I shouldn't have added it in the first place, forcing
> err inviting people like me to go read the source code.  Doing
> a good docstring is hard and I usually reserve those efforts for
> user-visible functions. You could have very well asked me
> what exactly a "PCM-style substring pattern" is, since that's
> just as loosely defined as everything else around those
> parts.

There's no reason to feel offended by Robert's comments.  They mean
well: to make our doc strings better.  They don't mean your change
wasn't an improvement, and surely weren't meant to offend you.

Thanks for making those changes.

reply via email to

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