Re: [comp.emacs.xemacs] Documenting elisp code
On 14 Dec 2001, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
[]
If you want to go through lisp-mnt.el and emacs-lisp-mode and so on,
and add the possibility of switching (similar to the way various
styles are permitted in cc-mode), I don't have an objection to that.
But XEmacs core and XEmacs-maintained packages will continue to be
done in the "library" style. We should document that as
"recommended."
I see your point, though I still dream of a world where all xemacs
packages and documentation was the "elisp coding tips" way.
Jarl> OK, so I guess you (to avoid recoding parts of lisp-mnt)
Jarl> suggest the library header tips
Not just lisp-mnt, but all of that "sample code" as well.
Please revise the tips to emphasize the "library header" style. You
are welcome to leave the description of the "elisp tips" as an
alternative, but you should mention that it is (a) poorly (== not?)
supported by the tools and (b) inconsistent with most code in XEmacs.
I may eventually revise this and follow your tips, and prolong personal
plans of converting tools (emacs-lisp-mode and lisp-mnt others?) to next
year, I guess a convertion function will also be apropriate in that case.
So now I'm just curious:
assuming that tools behave as expected and all examples (i.e. all existing
packages) are converted and documentation is consistent, what do you
prefer?
1) The elisp code tips style
2) The library header style
3) Don't care as long as the right keys inserts the right number of ";" at
the right places.
By the way I didn't know about lisp-mnt.el before now. I'll see what it
can do for me, thanks.
Jarl