Re[2]: checkdoc (was: mh-e 6.2 imminent)

[Eric M. Ludlam]

>>> "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden> seems to think that:
>>   Every suggestion from the Emacs Lisp reference manual that could be
>> easily tested, and auto-fixed was put into checkdoc.  This has oft
>> provided contention over if the tests were good or bad.  I opted not
>> to post judgment and have no personal stake in the different tests.
>
>And I agree with your approach.  The only problem I can see really
>(besides those in the coding convention ;-), is that when a
>test fails, the testing is aborted.  That is unfortunate when
>I want to leave one argument unmentioned but would still want
>to check that the symbols are properly quoted.
>
>Also that means that C-u checkdoc-current-buffer RET does not
>actually list all the issues.  Maybe there's a way to configure
>it differently, but it I didn't see it.
  [ ... ]

Yes, the mechanism is not very flexible which is why I had originally
started trying to rearchitect the insides.  I guess I couldn't fathom
why anyone would not want to fix all the problems. ;)

The prefix argument should allow more than one error message per doc
string, with a few exceptions in some cascading style checks.
Perhaps it broke somewhere in its history.

Eric

-- 
          Eric Ludlam:                 address@hidden, address@hidden
   Home: http://www.ludlam.net            Siege: www.siege-engine.com
Emacs: http://cedet.sourceforge.net               GNU: www.gnu.org