Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back

[T.V Raman]

Specifically re the checkdoc vs bytecomp warning:

Checkdoc is something you run yourself specifically to check, it's
like Lint, so you run it when you want it.

Bytecomp is something far more central to elisp development.


Stefan Kangas writes:
 > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
 > 
 > > We disagree.  This warning helped clean up many packages, both in and
 > > outside of Emacs, so it is definitely useful.  If the warning is
 > > caused by some macro package, it should be reported to the developers
 > > of that macro package, and fixed by them.  But disregarding these
 > > issues is a bad policy in the long run.
 > 
 > I don't feel very strongly about this, and can see myself going either
 > way:
 > 
 > - On the one hand, the benefits of this warning are clear.
 > 
 > - On the other, one could argue that this is a tad too opinionated a
 >   default for the byte-compiler.
 > 
 > I personally wouldn't object to a patch that disabled these warnings by
 > default, as long as we kept them enabled in our tree.  But that's me.
 > 
 > BTW, I'm curious why people find these particular warnings so intrusive,
 > and not the checkdoc defaults, which I personally find both more
 > opinionated and more noisy (e.g. when `checkdoc--argument-missing-flag'
 > is t, entire docstrings turns red in `flymake-mode').

--