* David Kastrup (2007-10-03) writes: > Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> * David Kastrup (2007-10-03) writes: >> >>> Hm? Just explaining the available semantics by referring to the actual >>> values is not actually doing anything different. While I agree that >>> one can use such a customize-only explanation in the manual, I think >>> that the DOC string for a variable should help with understanding the >>> code, not just the customization. >> >> The doc string shows up in the customization buffer. And that's where I >> wanted to have a description for the user, not the developer. I could >> perhaps as a compromise add the developer-aimed documentation as a >> comment to the defcustom code. > > It is not going to help the developer using C-h v when looking at the > code using the variable. Nobody is interested in the source code of > the defcustom or would think of looking there for the relevant > information.
Okay, I've added technical details. The result is rather obnoxious and I am thinking of yanking the changes out again. Or splitting it into sections like "Adaptation through Customize interface" and "Technical details". The point here is really that the variable is a user-level facility which should not be configured through `setq' and some such because it is simply too complicated, especially when font specifiers are to be used. Dealing with the variable on a technical level is only useful when hacking font-latex.el. -- Ralf _______________________________________________ bug-auctex mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
