[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back
From: |
T.V Raman |
Subject: |
Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Sep 2023 07:16:43 -0700 |
Agreed on everything except the last: Yes, we cant do anything about
third party macros, but we == Emacs is the one displaying the
docstring, so we can surely break ourselves free from the docstring
not being wider than 80 chars; and for instance, in your example, the
function name passed is a 128-char hyphenated string, then how to
handle that is still better handled in the display algorithm,
Stefan Kangas writes:
> "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com> writes:
>
> > Hope it gets fixed upstream in Hydra. But stepping back a level:
> >
> > 1. Byte Compiler warnings are really useful when developing in Emacs
> > Lisp.
> > 2. But they lose their value if the byte compiler gets noisy
>
> No disagreement there.
>
> > -- in
> > this case I think this warning qualifies as noise because:
> >
> > A. The developer who is hit with this warning can do nothing
> > about it
> > B. It obscures more useful warnings
> >
>
> A typical case looks like this:
>
> (defmacro foo (name)
> `(defun bar ()
> ,(format "foo %s." name)))
>
> If someone passes in a string NAME longer than 80 characters, that will
> generate a warning. It is the responsibility of whoever writes a macro
> to ensure it doesn't generate long docstrings by properly wrapping it.
> The same is true for any byte-compiler warning.
>
> In core we use `internal--format-docstring-line' for this, which means
> that fixed code for the above would look like this:
>
> (defmacro foo (name)
> `(defun bar ()
> ,(internal--format-docstring-line
> (format "foo %s." name))))
>
> I don't think there's anything we can do about macros in third-party
> packages, unfortunately. Perhaps `internal--format-docstring-line' is
> useful enough not to be marked internal, though? I'm not sure.
>
> > And by the way when this was fixed a few months ago, it
> > ws fixed in the Emacs tree.
>
> But that warning was due to a macro in our tree, right?
--
- Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back, (continued)
- Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back, Stefan Kangas, 2023/09/25
- Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back, T.V Raman, 2023/09/26
- Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back, Stefan Kangas, 2023/09/27
- Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back, T.V Raman, 2023/09/27
- Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back, Emanuel Berg, 2023/09/27
- Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back, T.V Raman, 2023/09/27
- Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back, Emanuel Berg, 2023/09/27
- Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back, Stefan Kangas, 2023/09/28
- Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back, T.V Raman, 2023/09/28
- Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back, Stefan Kangas, 2023/09/28
- Re: bytecomp: doc string wider than 80 spurious warnings are back,
T.V Raman <=