Re: [External] : Rename .dir-locals.el to .dir-locals.eld

[Michael Welsh Duggan]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> > 2. Isn't every Elisp sexp "code"?  How are you
>> >     going to distinguish "code" from other sexps?
>> 
>> Try 'M-x eval-buffer' in any buffer visiting a .dir-locals.el file.
>
> Lisp data is Lisp code.  Lisp code can raise
> errors.
>
> Narrow any bit of fine Lisp code randomly and
> eval it.  It's still code; it's just unlikely
> to be `eval'able without error.
>
> I think you're talking about Lisp code that's
> Lisp-`read'able without error, but not 
> necessarily `eval'able without error.
>
> If so, fine.  But that, in itself, doesn't
> say why it merits a different file extension.
> There may be good reasons.  So far, haven't
> heard any.

>From my point of view, it is an indication that the lisp forms in the
file are not guaranteed to be (and most likely will not be) evaluated.
Having a separate mode means that buffers with this mode can
automatically avoid linting as if they were top level forms intended for
evaluation.  Having a separate extension makes it easy to automatically
use a different editing mode.  Also, the extension and mode are good
indicators to the user that any forms generally meant for evaluation
(like backquote) are not guaranteed to enter a context in which they
will be evaluated.

All of this is just my opinion.  I did not go back and reread the
discussion that led to lisp-data-mode.  I remember that I was swayed by
the reasons in that discussion, so the reasons I state above may not be
good enough to merit the change in your opinion.

-- 
Michael Welsh Duggan
(md5i@md5i.com)