Re: [ELPA] A Setup package

[Philip Kaludercic]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> OK, we now have:
>
>     http://elpa.gnu.org/devel/setup.html

Thank you!

> We don't yet have http://elpa.gnu.org/packages/setup.html OTOH because
> the 0.1.0 version of the code is missing the copyright changes (the
> release is made from the commit in which you bump the version number).
> So if you want to make a release based on this code, you'll want to bump
> up the version number.

What exactly is missing?  My understanding was that I had to update the
header and the COPYING file.

> Here's some other suggestions.

I like most of the suggestions, would you mind me committing them with
you as the author?

> Obviously the use of `help--make-usage` is problematic since the `--`
> indicates it's not supposed to be used by "outsiders", so we should
> change help.el or help-fns.el to provide a proper function for that
> (pcase uses `help-fns--signature` instead, which suffers from the same
> problem).

Why use help--make-usage at all?  Something along the same lines could
be simplified (eg. without default values and unused variables) and
directly implemented in setup.

>         (let (specs)
>           (dolist (name (mapcar #'car setup-macros))
>             (let ((body (cond ((eq (get name 'setup-debug) 'none) nil)
>                               ((get name 'setup-debug) nil)
>                               ('(sexp)))))
> -             (push (if (get name 'setup-repeatable)
> +             (push (if (plist-get opts :repeatable)

This doesn't work! The specification is regenerated for every
setup-define call, and if the implicit rest uses opts, all macros will
be treated the same way.

It might be better to save the specification in a separate variable and
modify this destructively for every setup-define call, so as to avoid
the overhead of redefining the entire specification all the time.

-- 
        Philip K.