GNU bug report logs - #15820
24.3.50; (elisp) `File Local Variables'

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 15820 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 15820 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 24.3.50; (elisp) `File Local Variables'
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:09:53 -0800 (PST)

This part of the text is unclear:

  When defining a user option using `defcustom', you can set its
  `safe-local-variable' property by adding the arguments `:safe FUNCTION'
  to `defcustom'

FUNCTION needs to be described here.  Just say that FUNCTION is the same
as the function used as the value of property `safe-local-variable'.

That will provide readers the understanding that FUNCTION "has to be a
function of one argument; any value is safe if the function returns
non-`nil' given that value."

In GNU Emacs 24.3.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
 of 2013-10-19 on LEG570
Bzr revision: 114715 rgm <at> gnu.org-20131019023520-s8mwtib7xcx9e05w
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --enable-checking 'CFLAGS=-O0 -g3' CPPFLAGS=-DGLYPH_DEBUG=1'

Message #8 received at 15820 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: 15820 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15820: 24.3.50; (elisp) `File Local Variables'
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 13:01:01 -0500

Drew Adams wrote:

> This part of the text is unclear:
>
>   When defining a user option using `defcustom', you can set its
>   `safe-local-variable' property by adding the arguments `:safe FUNCTION'
>   to `defcustom'
>
> FUNCTION needs to be described here.  Just say that FUNCTION is the same
> as the function used as the value of property `safe-local-variable'.

It is explained in the immediately previous paragraph.
Repeating it seems unnecessarily verbose, and we all hate unnecessary
verbosity, don't we?

Message #13 received at 15820 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>, 15820 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#15820: 24.3.50; (elisp) `File Local Variables'
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:17:43 -0800 (PST)

> > This part of the text is unclear:
> >
> >   When defining a user option using `defcustom', you can set its
> >   `safe-local-variable' property by adding the arguments `:safe
> >   FUNCTION' to `defcustom'
> >
> > FUNCTION needs to be described here.  Just say that FUNCTION is
> > the same as the function used as the value of property
> > `safe-local-variable'.
> 
> It is explained in the immediately previous paragraph.

FUNCTION is not described there.  What is described there is the
function that is the value of property `safe-local-variable'.

But I was mistaken that the connection between the two is not made
clear.  They are connected in the same sentence, by saying that
:safe FUNCTION _sets_ the property.  It is reasonable to assume
that FUNCTION is used as the value that is set.  Not a bug.  Thx.

Message #16 received at 15820 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 15820 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15820: 24.3.50; (elisp) `File Local Variables'
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:56:16 +0100

Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org> writes:

> It is explained in the immediately previous paragraph.
> Repeating it seems unnecessarily verbose, and we all hate unnecessary
> verbosity, don't we?

Don't be so schnippisch!


Regards,

Michael.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.