GNU bug report logs - #60366
[PATCH] Simplify introduction of use-package manual

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec <at> gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2022 21:44:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: patch

Found in version 29.0.60

Done: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #10 received at 60366 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec <at> gmail.com>
To: 60366 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#60366: [PATCH] Simplify introduction of use-package manual
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:00:52 +0100
[ CC'ing StefanK, since these specific bits were authored in 2022-12-08
  "Add new use-package manual" (98e54f597e1) ]

Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hello Emacs,
>
> A couple of things intrigue me in the current introduction of the
> use-package manual:
>
>> This chapter provides instructions and examples for quickly getting
>> started with use-package.  The first thing you need to do is make sure
>> that ‘use-package’ itself is loaded.  To do that, put this at the top of
>> your init file:
>> 
>>      (require 'use-package)
>> 
>>    The above makes the ‘use-macro’ available for us in the rest of your
>> init file.  In this manual, we say that each call to ‘use-macro’ is a
>> “declaration”, to highlight the declarative nature of its syntax.
> — (info "(use-package) Getting Started")
>
> (a) I don't think use-package defines anything called "use-macro";
> guessing this was supposed to read "‘use-package’ macro" instead?  I
> guess the former could be a shorthand for the latter, but it's not used
> anywhere else in the manual.
>
> (b) AFAICT use-package is autoloaded, so there should be no need for the
> user to (require 'use-package)?
>
> I've made a patch against emacs-29 to simplify this part of the manual
> according to these hypotheses.  I hope they are correct; apologies for
> the noise if not.
>
> (And even if the hypotheses are correct, I hope the patch is OK: the
> second sentence in this tentative new paragraph feels a bit disconnected
> from the first to me.  Still, I figured it was worth submitting anyway
> just to validate those hypotheses before racking more of my brain on
> optimal wording)
>
> Thanks.




This bug report was last modified 2 years and 146 days ago.

Previous Next


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