GNU bug report logs - #70589
[PATCH] Refine the Custom type of generated '*-modes' options

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 70589 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: bug#70589: [PATCH] Refine the Custom type of generated '*-modes' options
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 18:34:20 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
>> Cc: 70589 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
>> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:24:42 +0200
>>
>> >> These are slightly different: a value of t ("Enable in all major modes")
>> >> says to enable everywhere, while a t inside a list ("All major modes")
>> >> says to enable in modes that were not mentioned earlier in the list (so
>> >> putting t in the end of the list means "otherwise, enable").  Similarly
>> >> for the "none" alternatives: a value of nil ("Don't enable...") means we
>> >> never enable the minor mode, while the effect of a nil inside the list
>> >> is relative to the previous elements, and means "otherwise, don't".
>> >> Does that make sense?
>> >
>> > It might make sense, if we change the labels to say what you tell
>> > above.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>>
>> OK, here's an updated patch with revised labels:
>
> Thanks, but I find the likes of "By default, enable" not clear enough.
> Would it be accurate to say this instead:
>
>                         (const :tag "Enable in any other mode" t)
>                         (const :tag "Don't enable in the other modes" nil)

That could also work, but I think this wording is a bit confusing when
entering the first list element (so there are no "other mode/s" yet).
If you think it's nevertheless preferable, I don't object.

Previous Next

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