> Someone made a different suggestion involving sorting just the groups; > perhaps that is the right way to go.
Sorting the groups is not a good thing either. Many top-level groups are defined in cus-edit.el in useful order. Other groups defined in other packages are added to the end of the existing groups. This is good since additional groups are less important than basic groups. > If we don't want alphabetical sorting, perhaps what we need to do is > rearrange some groups carefully by hand (those important enough to > care?) the way you have just now rearranged one of them. There was only one complaint so far about order of options in the group `basic-faces'. I fixed them to be in useful order. I also looked at a few other groups in non-alphabetical order (i.e. programmer-defined order), and don't see any other group were order of items is so obviously broken as in `basic-faces'. I think everyone who will find illogical order in some group, can send a proposal for better reordering. In any case, alphabetical is bad sorting order. It doesn't help for users to find a required option faster, and it breaks logical order defined by programmers. -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/ _______________________________________________ Emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
