[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Omitting :group [was: master 7936c8a: * lisp/mb-depth.el (minibuf
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: Omitting :group [was: master 7936c8a: * lisp/mb-depth.el (minibuffer-depth-indicator): New face.] |
Date: |
Thu, 7 Jan 2021 16:18:55 +0000 (UTC) |
> > > This change causes a byte-compilation warning:
> > > In toplevel form:
> > > mb-depth.el:38:1: Warning: defface for
> > > `minibuffer-depth-indicator' fails to specify
> > > containing group
> >
> > IMHO, we should adopt and promote a guideline
> > that it's a good, not a bad, idea to always
> > include an explicit `:group'.
>
> Aren't you confusing :group in defcustom with :group in defface?
Perhaps I am (am I)? What's the difference?
(elisp) `Common Keywords' suggests that its
description of :group applies to "the next few
sections-'defcustom', 'defgroup', etc."
And node `Group Definitions' suggests that a
group defined by `defgroup' applies to all of
the group's members, and that such members are
declared using `:group'.
`:group' is specified for use in many constructs,
in many nodes of the Elisp manual. Shouldn't its
behavior (and usage guidelines) be the same
everywhere?
FWIW, I don't see any special description of
`:group' in the doc about `defface'. I do see,
in other nodes, cross-references to nodes that
introduce/define customization groups - but I
don't see any such xref in the node for `defface'.