GNU bug report logs - #69079
[PATCH] Add 'customize-toggle-option' command

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#69079: closed ([PATCH] Add 'customize-toggle-option' command)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 20:11:01 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Tue, 13 Feb 2024 20:09:46 +0000
with message-id <87ttmc5do5.fsf <at> posteo.net>
and subject line Re: bug#69079: [PATCH] Add 'customize-toggle-option' command
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #69079,
regarding [PATCH] Add 'customize-toggle-option' command
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
69079: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=69079
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] Add 'customize-toggle-option' command
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 17:32:37 +0000

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

I have had this option in my own init.el for a while, and think it would
be nice to upstream it.  Any comments:

[0001-Add-'custom-variable'-command.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
To: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 69079-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#69079: [PATCH] Add 'customize-toggle-option' command
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 20:09:46 +0000

Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
>>> Cc: 69079 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>>> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 00:14:38 +0000
>>>
>>> >> My assumption was that the command would only be invoked interactivly,
>>> >> so I can either make that explicit with an `interactive-only' or repeat
>>> >> the check.  What do you think would be better?
>>> >
>>> > I think an explicit test is better, since then we get to display a
>>> > user-friendly error message, instead of relying on Lisp errors to
>>> > explain themselves.
>>> >
>>> > Btw, are you sure that the users can never succeed in inputting a
>>> > non-boolean option with the way you prompt them?
>>>
>>> No, that was not ensured, and I think it is better not to.  I have
>>> adjusted the patch to check and prompt the user if the user option is
>>> non-boolean, in case they know what they are doing.  WDYT?
>>
>> LGTM, although I haven't tried to actually use the code.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> FWIW, I think it'd be nice to use the as the default minibuffer argument
> symbol at point, if applicable.

Done and pushed.

Previous Next

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