Re: Explicit encoding cookie in Elisp files Add prettify-symbols-alist for js-mode

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 09/28/2015 10:27 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Fine with me.  Although it definitely narrows the applicability of
> that suggestion, because the issue is not necessarily "using" the
> files, but even visiting them with an older version.

Yes, that is the exact distinction. Has it caused you a tangible amount 
of hassle over the years?

Thanks.

> And the latter
> happens, at least to me, quite a lot, e.g. when I need to look at
> those files on a system where only an older Emacs is installed or
> usable.

Hopefully, that will occur less and less. 24.4 will soon be a year old.

> And again, it's just a suggestion, not a requirement.  We already have
> similar language elsewhere in CONTRIBUTE, for example:
>
>    - There is no need to mention files such as NEWS, MAINTAINERS, and
>      FOR-RELEASE, or to indicate regeneration of files such as
>      'configure', in the ChangeLog entry.  "There is no need" means you
>      don't have to, but you can if you want to.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> It's okay to not behave according to such suggestions: that's why they
> are worded as non-mandatory suggestions.  Why such strong opposition?

That suggestion makes it clear that the choice is irrelevant.

And change log guidelines are in a bit different position than source 
code guidelines: it's perfectly possible for two different developers to 
work on the same code while keeping to their respective change log 
preferences.

> > I don't mind having a difference in opinion, if you don't object to
> > reverting db828f6.
>
> Sigh.  Revert it if you must.  But see below for why I think that's a
> desire I don't understand, unless you have some problem with my
> commits specifically.

Just that one particular commit.

> Did you see how many of our Lisp files already have the cookie that
> states UTF-8 encoding?  (Answer: 197.)  Moreover, various features
> that generate *.el files automatically insert the cookie there, see
> autoload.el and ido.el for just 2 examples.  Did this bother you, or
> anyone else, until now?

I wasn't actively aware of that, but I imagine a lot of them come from 
before Emacs 24.4 (both files and generation scripts).

If it's inconsistency you dislike, I can commit to spend the effort and 
remove the cookies where they're not strictly required, if you like.

> So why did that single commit, which added a
> cookie to 3 more files, for a 1.5% growth, suddenly bother you?  I
> just did what we have been doing for many years, something that was
> burned into my muscle memory during all those years.

Imagine that we added a new syntax feature to Elisp, used it for over a 
year from time to time in some new code, and them one of the developers 
"desugared" all its uses into more verbose code that's compatible with 
older Emacsen. The present situation is not as absurd, but that's the 
direction I'm looking at it from.

> IOW, don't you see how this minuscule issue is blown out of
> proportions for reasons I cannot even begin to understand?  And why do
> you single out only those 3 files, but say nothing about the others?
> If you really dislike those cookies so much, I'd expect you to first
> realize the magnitude of the "problem", and then attack it
> consistently across the board, rather than pouncing on my single
> commit.

We also have lots of compilation warnings, non-idiomatic (or just 
somewhat obsolete) uses of Elisp in different places, and other similar 
problems, for which there's not enough manpower/enthusiasm to fix.

I'd prefer not to exacerbate any of them. But like I said, my issue is 
not with individual cookies, but with the strong suggestion to add them 
everywhere UTF-8 is used.