2014-11-26 12:57 GMT+01:00 Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es>:
>
> Hi Mosè
>    > Hi Uwe,
>    > 2014-11-25 18:48 GMT+01:00 Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es>:
>
>    > I agree backward compatibility should be preserved as long as possible
>    > (but not at any cost), but about what?  Most users only customize
>    > variables, don't fiddle with functions, if they write some elisp we
>    > hope they're also able to read the doc string of a function and see
>    > which are its arguments, if they've been changed.  But please consider
>    > the first version of a program (nor the second, the third, and so on)
>    > is not perfect, when you develop it you arrive at a point in which you
>    > must choose between keeping it bugged/broken, and fix it and break
>    > compatibility (or fork it).
>
> My point is the following: if you improve a function or variable by
> adding more options it should be done, in my opinion, in way the user
> has not to change his old settings.
>
>    > Regarding the change to `LaTeX-label', the whole point of it was to
>    > let users choose to which environments label should be inserted.  The
>    > addition of the second argument was needed to discriminate between
>    > environments and sections as suggested by Vladimir.
>
> I don't want to start this discussion again, since  I also use reftex,
> my labels look typically
>
>   \label{rem:fixpoint-scheme:2}
>
> Meaning that this  is the second remark in the file called fixpoint-scheme. For
> me this is enough I wouldn't need to add more information like the one
> concerning the section, but I understand there are users with other needs.
>
>
>    > Defaulting `prefix' to an empty string when no type is provided (in
>    > order to make this argument optional) would defeat the whole
>    > purpose of the change. Only defaulting `prefix' to nil wouldn't
>    > break old codes using `LateX-label' function, but keeping the
>    > second argument mandatory helps users be aware of the change of the
>    > syntax of `LaTeX-label'.
>
> I had a look at the code and it is really a complete rewrite. From my
> philosophical  point of view, the "appropriate" approach would have been
> to leave the second argument optionally not mandatory, and a user
> interested in this enhancement could consult the documentation and not
> the other way around: that the long-term-user gets an error and presumes
> a bug.
>
> Something like this.
> (defun LaTeX-label (name &optional type)
>
>
>    > Moral: I'm not going to change `LaTeX-label'.
>
> Would you accept an (ugly) patch? (Also the changes that I do this any
> time soon are  unlikely due to my workload and other priorities, such as
> the xemacs pkg sync.)

See the attached patch: this makes second argument optional but
doesn't change the spirit of LaTeX-label.

Bye,
Mosè