--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
25.1; Customizing group `text' |
|
Date: |
Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:46:26 -0700 (PDT) |
1. M-x customize-group RET emacs RET
That shows a group named "Text".
2. M-x customize-group RET text RET
says "[No match]"
There is apparently no such group - at least none reachable using
completion.
Something seems wrong, somewhere, e.g., for `customize-group'.
In GNU Emacs 25.1.1 (x86_64-w64-mingw32)
of 2016-09-17 built on LAPHROAIG
Windowing system distributor 'Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
'configure --without-dbus --without-compress-install CFLAGS=-static'
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#24549: 25.1; Customizing group `text' |
|
Date: |
Sat, 08 Oct 2016 16:40:49 +0300 |
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
>
> > > IOW, we can (1) make a group `text' that behaves essentially
> > > like `wp' and (2) let users know that `wp' is considered
> > > deprecated.
> >
> > If this works, it is probably better, yes.
>
> IOW, something like the code below.
Thanks, done on the master branch.
> Question 1: Why is group `outlines' declared in both
> cus-edit.el and outline.el? And in outline.el it has a
> prefix declared, but not in cus-edit.el. Group `outlines'
> is not _used_ in cus-edit.el, AFAICT. What would happen
> if we removed group `outlines' from cus-edit.el?
> (This question has nothing to do with this bug report.
> Just happened to notice the duplication.)
This duplication is an oversight from when outline.el was converted to
use Custom. I fixed this now.
> Question 2: Should group `text' inherit directly from group
> `emacs'? Should it also inherit from group `wp'?
I left it inherit from both. It cannot do any harm, I think.
> I think the answer to both of these is yes. WDYT?
>
> Question 3: Should group `wp' still be inherited from, by a
> group that now inherits from `text'? E.g., should group
> `tildify' inherit from both `wp' as well as from `text'?
>
> I don't think so. If group `text' itself inherits from `wp'
> then I don't think there is any reason that we need to have
> other groups still inherit directly from `wp' (as well as
> from `text'). WDYT?
I agree.
I think this bug is now done.
--- End Message ---