Re: Regarding outline headings in emacs-lisp libraries

[Jonas Bernoulli]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Jonas Bernoulli <jonas@bernoul.li>
>> Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 17:43:13 +0200
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > I think I asked a question about the proposed use of the "Code"
>> > heading under your proposal, and I'd still like to discuss that issue,
>> > because it sounds like that heading will no longer have any role.
>> 
>> Yes you did but I though that this part of what you are replying to
>> addressed that:
>> 
>> > The ‘;;; Code:’ section itself should
>> > be used for the ‘require’ forms and for other such "front
>> > matter".
>
> That's okay, but we will have to rename it to something else, then.
>
>> I am also listing a few more things explicitly in my response to Stefan,
>> i.e.:
>> 
>> > This section may also contain other
>> > things that "have to happen early on" and/or "don't fit anywhere
>> > else".  For example the definition of `PACKAGE-version' or internal
>> > variables and macros that are used early on.
>> 
>> We all have seen plenty of libraries and know the messy bits that tend
>> to accumulate at the beginning of their code portion.  That's the stuff
>> that I would leave inside the "Code:" section.  The bits that come
>> before the first `defgroup' (if any).
>
> "Preliminaries"?

Sounds like an interesting option, but lets discuss in the sibling
thread where the names of both sections are being discussed.