Re: Regarding outline headings in emacs-lisp libraries

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Jonas Bernoulli <jonas@bernoul.li>,  rms@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2020 23:22:01 -0400
> 
> >> Stefan seems to dislike the idea of doing away with the "Code:" name
> >> more strongly than I do.
> > And I still don't understand why.
> 
> I have the strong suspicion that renaming all those `;;; Code:` in all
> those files *will* lead to regressions, since that convention's been
> with us for so many years and followed by such a wide percentage of all
> distributed Elisp files, that I expect it's used by several scripts we
> don't know about.

If we don't know about such scripts, do we really need to assume they
exist?

And what kind of scripts did you have in mind -- scripts which do what
jobs?

> And of course, we won't be able to rename them all, since too many of
> them aren't under our control anyway.  So ";;; Core:" will be with us
> for the next 10 years whether we like it or not.

How about if we leave "Code:", but just as a heading with absolutely
no body, i.e. if we add right after it some more appropriate heading
("Prerequisites:" or somesuch)?  Would that be a good compromise?

> Now, if the benefit were significant, I wouldn't mind, but AFAICT, the
> benefit of renaming is very small (at least, given the alternative names
> I've seen proposed so far which all seemed rather bland).  

It's IMO as significant when compared to the rest of Jonas's proposal.