Re: [Ebib-users] Ebib 0.25 released!

[Steve Y. <st...@sx...>]

* Joost Kremers <joo...@fa...> writes:

  > On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 05:08:46PM +1000, Steve Youngs wrote:

[key bindings]

  >> In what way were they not customisable before?

  > you needed to hack the source before.

No you didn't.  You added some `define-key' forms to your init.el/.emacs.

  > but someone that knows latex cannot be assumed to know elisp

Perhaps not, but I think the average LaTeX user, especially the
emacs-brandishing LaTeX user, wouldn't have too much of a problem.

  >> I also don't see any benefit or point to the `ebib-key' macro.
  >> Isn't...
  >>=20
  >> (define-key ebib-foo-map [(control c) x] #'foo-function)
  >>=20
  >> ...good enough?

  > this and the other two macros are just to sugar-coat lisp syntax a bit =
for
  > non-lispers.

:-)=20

  >> > Jesse made a few other suggestions, that I'm considering
  >> > incorporating. One thing I think I won't do, is to use Emacs'
  >> > standard customisation interface (M-x customize) for Ebib.
  >>=20
  >> I'm not sure how much of Ebib is customisable, but I think this is a m=
istake.

  > what is? doing it through M-x customize or *not* doing it through M-x
  > customize?

Not giving the user the ability to customise Ebib via M-x customize if
they so desire.

  >> > Plus, I feel that the little customisation that Ebib might need
  >> > can easily be handled through .ebibrc.=20
  >>=20
  >> OK, I'm heading off on a bit of a tangent here, but, from what I can
  >> see, there isn't anything in .ebibrc that couldn't be left in
  >> ebib.el.  I don't see the need to have an rc file.  Couldn't you just
  >> state in the manual... "if you want to add your own entry types, put
  >> (defentry foo-entry (...)) into your init.el/.emacs" ?

  > well, that would be an option, but that would kinda defeat the
  > purpose of using autoload.

How so?  It shouldn't change things at all in that regard.

  >> Actually, I'd be inclined to turn those `defentry's into
  >> `defcustom's, although I'm not quite sure how hard that would
  >> be. :-)

  > but doesn't defcustom imply using M-x customize?

No, it just means the user can customise via M-x customize if she
wants to.  Just because a variable is defined with `defcustom' doesn't
mean it can't be assigned in the user's .emacs with `setq'[1]

  >> > (I'm of course open to counter-arguments on this point, so
  >> > please let me know if you feel differently.)
  >>=20
  >> The counter argument is that _all_ user-configurable variables
  >> should be defined with `defcustom'.

  > just like we should all be using MS Windows and Word...

That's hardly a fair comparison, everyone knows that there aren't any
valid reasons or excuses for using M$.  But...

Why would you not use `defcustom'?  It makes life a lot easier for the
novice to intermediate user, and doesn't hinder the advanced user in
any way.  From a user's perspective, there is no down-side to Ebib
using `defcustom'.


Footnotes:=20
[1]  Yes, sometimes you need to use `customize-set-variable' instead
     of `setq', but that is only necessary in special circumstances.

=2D-=20
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
|                 I am Dyslexic of Borg.                   |=20
|    Fusistance is retile. Your arse will be laminated.    |
|------------------------------------<st...@sx...>---|