Subject: Re: bug#41814: defmethod cl-print-object is not entirely reliable

From: akater <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 19:01:12 +0000

Michael Heerdegen <[email-masked]> writes:

> Yes, this doesn't use cl-print at all.  And I think that makes sense:
> when inserting a value into a buffer, readability is important (that
> doesn't make a difference in your case, though).

I'm afraid I disagree.  Why would anyone write a printing method if they
didn't aim for better readability in the first place?

My example was an MWE.  This behaviour concerns me because I have
classes with plenty of slots, and I actually often return /a tree/ of
corrsponding objects.  It certainly looks less readable when cl-print is
not used.  The whole point of defining a printing method is to have
fine-tuned printed represntations.  If it's not actually used
[everywhere, of course] I just don't understand why it's there at all.

IELM, too, “inserts value into a buffer” so I don't really get this
distinction either.

I'd have my personal itch scratched if I could at least specify cl-print
use in Org blocks but this doesn't feel right at all.

Does Emacs have object inspector?  If not, I'd guess its lack is the
real reason behind the desire to keep overly detailed output in some
places.