[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#2030: 23.0.60; doc string of dired-guess-shell-alist-user
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
bug#2030: 23.0.60; doc string of dired-guess-shell-alist-user |
Date: |
Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:09:08 -0800 |
The doc string should suggest that users use Customize. It should not
use a complex `setq' example as its only illustration:
(setq dired-guess-shell-alist-user
(list (list "\\.foo\\'" "FOO-COMMAND");; fixed rule
;; possibly more rules ...
(list "\\.bar\'";; rule with condition test
'(if condition
"BAR-COMMAND-1"
"BAR-COMMAND-2"))))
This example is in any case incorrect - "\\.bar\'" should be "\\.bar\\'".
If it's felt that an example of a _value_ for this option is needed,
then it's OK to show that directly:
(("\\.foo\\'" "foo-command") ; unconditional rule
("\\.bar\\'" ; conditional rule
(if (some-sexp) "bar-command-1" "bar-command-2")))
But there is absolutely no reason to show setting the value using
`setq', especially since the expression evaluated by `setq' is 100%
constant. Nothing is gained by showing anything other than the result
of that evaluation, that is, a possible value for the option.
It might also be better to write `(some-sexp)' or similar, instead of
`condition', to emphasise that even that part is code to be evaluated.
The use of uppercase for the command names is also problematic - those
are constants (strings). This is an example, not a template.
In sum: (1) the doc string is confusing in several respects; (2) it is
incorrect; (3) it is unnecessarily complex; and (4) it favors Lisp
instead of Customize for a user-option example.
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- bug#2030: 23.0.60; doc string of dired-guess-shell-alist-user,
Drew Adams <=