Re: adding to emacs coding standard / formatting

[Stefan Kangas]

Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@gmx.com> writes:

> My work apropos the thread " ~Make emacs friendlier: package documentation 
> [POC
> CODE INCLUDED]" highlighted to me benefit to proposing to add to the
> accepted / suggested / required format of emacs elisp packages.
>
> I had expecting symbol definitions to be grouped together by symbol type
> and function, eg. all `defcustom's to be listed together in a section
> beginning "^;;; Customization variables:", and so on for symbol
> categories ";;; Global variables:", ";;; Buffer-local variables", ";;;
> Internal functions:", ";;; Hook functions:", ";;; Interactive
> functions:", etc.
>
> That isn't the case in package time.el, so that's probably also the case
> in other packages. Should doing so be added to the coding standard?

FWIW, I wouldn't like to see this added to our coding standards at a
language level.  I find it overly bureaucratic.  Files should follow a
standard that makes sense to what its trying to present.

Also, third-party package developers should have some room to maintain
their own standards.

(That said, I'm not a fan of the organization in time.el, as it mixes
unrelated things in one file and violates our prefix naming
conventions.)