Re: add info about safe-local-variable to describe-variable

[Ken Manheimer]

On 5/10/06, Reiner Steib <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, May 10 2006, Reiner Steib wrote:
>
> > I still think we should avoid printing byte-code even in case third
> > party libraries forget to quote a lambda expression.
>
> I noticed that we also get byte-code for the `allout.el' variables
> like `allout-numbered-bullet'.  This happens because Ken Manheimer
> (cc-ed) used...
>
> ;;;###autoload
> (put 'allout-numbered-bullet 'safe-local-variable
>      (lambda (x) (or (not x) (stringp x))))
>
> ... instead of...
>
> ;;;###autoload(put 'allout-numbered-bullet 'safe-local-variable (lambda (x) (or 
> (not x) (stringp x))))
>
> ... (and similar for other many other variables) in `allout.el'.

i haven't seen some of this conversation (i looked in the archive, and
these messages aren't there yet), and i'm not clear whether something
is being requested here.

i deliberately chose to use the form that defines the variables in the
file's bytecode, as well as in loaddefs, because i want to be able to
use the most recent version of allout in versions of emacs that are
not built with allout (eg, the old emacs version i'm running on my
zaurus).  i would like to be able to use the same source code in such
cases.  (i imagine other people might be in the same situation.)  i
haven't seen drawbacks in doing it this way, and so went with it.

i don't want to make allout objectionable for distribution with emacs,
and am willing to conform to the conventions, if necessary.  is having
the definitions exist only in loaddefs being asked, or will it be
enough to have the active definitions in allout as well, but quote the
lambda expressions so they're not byte-compiled (and so don't clutter
the help)?

(i will respond to reiner's subsequent message separately.)

--
ken manheimer
address@hidden
http://myriadicity.net