Hi Klaus,
If somebody doesn't know how to determine the type of a Lisp variable,
he is not a power user in my estimation. I therefore see no need to
document the data type for the power use. Further, documenting the
types encourages users to believe that writing Lisp and editing a
customization buffer are both equally acceptable ways of cusomizing
the JDEE. This is not the message I want to convey. Long experience
supporting the JDEE has taught me that .emacs file errors are the most
common source of problems with the JDEE. After I introduced
customization into the JDEE, the incidence of these errors as reported
on the JDEE mailing list dropped drastically. I therefore want to
discourage JDEE users to the greatest extent possible from writing
Lisp to customize the JDEE. It is not necessary, saves no time, and
only creates tech support headaches for myself and others on the JDEE
list.
Further, it is not enough for a "power user" to know Lisp. He has to
realize that the JDEE customization works ONLY if he uses custom to
set the values of variables, i.e., either interactively (the
preferred way because it prevents the user from making type and
typographical errors) or using custom-set-variable. setq and
setq-default DO NOT WORK. The reason for this is that the JDEE uses
various properties of variables set by custom to determine whether the
value of a variable is that specified by the user's .emacs file, by a
prj.el file, or by the Lisp code that defines the variable. This is
clearly explained in the JDEE user's guide. Unfortunately, power
users tend NOT to read documentation because they already know
everthing there is to know about Emacs.
- Paul
Berndl, Klaus writes:
> Because we have with ECB sometimes the same problem, some words
> from me to this topic:
>
> IMHO both Paul and Andy are right and also not right:
> Andy has right because IMHO the lisp format of a option
> is important for completeness and there are some power-
> users which sometimes MUST customize options with
> elisp-code at least with a contruct like:
>
> (custom-set-variables '(jde-mode-line-format default-mode-line-format)
> '(jde-java-font-lock-api-file "~/.jde-java-font-lock.api")
> '(jde-complete-insert-method-signature nil)
> '(jde-auto-parse-buffer-interval 180)
> '(jde-auto-parse-enable t)
> '(jde-auto-parse-max-buffer-size 0)
> '(jde-which-method-mode nil)
> '(jde-imenu-enable nil)
> '(jde-imenu-sort (quote asc))
> ;; Debugger JDEbug options
> '(jde-run-classic-mode-vm t)
> '(jde-bug-jdk-directory "d:/Programme/jdk1.3")
> '(jde-bug-vm-includes-jpda-p t)
> '(jde-db-debugger (quote ("JDEbug" "" . "Executable")))
> '(jde-check-version-flag nil)
> )
>
> For site administrators this can be necessary and for this they have to
> know the lisp format.
>
> On the other side Paul has right because JDEE has a mechanism which
> prevents jde-options set by (setq....) or something similar to take
> effect. IN ECB for example are a lot of options which have
> :set clauses so a correct setting can only be done via customize!
> I suppose JDEE has such options too...
> So it makes sense that Paul insists on setting JDEEs options only
> by customize.
>
> But IMHO a compromise would be the best:
> 1. Each option should have a documentation-part which describes the
> lisp format.
> 2. The manual should contain a string recommendation that option
> should only be set via customize and not via setq
> 3. The manual should contain a section where customizing for
> power-users and site-admins is explained (see above).
>
> So both worlds could be satisfied....
>
>
> Ciao,
> Klaus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kinnucan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 5:17 PM
> To: Andy Piper
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: JDE variable docs incomplete
>
>
> Andy Piper writes:
> > I have noticed that while the lisp help strings for JDE variables
> > describe what the variables do, almost none of them describe the
> > format of the variable. I know that this information is encoded in
> > the custom spec, but for power-users and for completeness it
> > really should be in the doc string as well. I will come up with
> > a patch for those I have discovered if people think this will be
> > useful.
>
>
> I'd prefer not to do this as it will encourage people to use Lisp to
> set customization variables which will then lead to the situation of
> the days before custom when the majority of tech suppport questions on
> the JDEE list arose from people setting customization variables
> incorrectly. The worst offenders were (and continue to be) "power
> users" who "know" what the correct data type is for a variable and
> hence don't need to consult the doc.
>
> - Paul
>
