[PATCH 1 of 3 stable] obsolete: fix language and grammer in module docstring

[Mads Kiilerich]

On 04/21/2014 02:07 PM, Martin Geisler wrote:

>>> I can resend with that fixed if you like? I would also like to wrap
>>> the strings at a consistent width (72 chars is default in Emacs), but
>>> I'm unsure if we want this on stable?
>> It do not seem to be a good idea to wrap it to 72 chars just because
>> that is the default in one of the many editors people use for editing
>> the source code.
> The default is not completely random. I believe the idea behind wrapping
> lines a little earlier than 80 characters is that it gives you a buffer
> for when the text is used in other contexts: our code often appears in
> diffs on this list and these diffs are then quoted further in followup
> replies.
>
> Here, such a "buffer" can allow you to edit a line without having to
> reflow the subsequent lines. So if you replace "foo" with "foobar" the
> line lenght might still be within 80 characters.

Sure. I am not saying that 72 characters is bad. But if we want to 
reformat code automatically, we should do it consistently, and describe 
and mandate it in CodingStyle.

> In my experience, it's mostly people who use Emacs who even think about
> reformatting text line that. My guess is that it's because it's so easy
> and well-supported in Emacs. In my previous job, Sublime Text was quite
> popular. When I asked people how it rewrapped text they looked at me
> with puzzled look. Sublime Text actually supports reflowing of text, and
> the keyboard shortcut is even the same as in Emacs: "Alt + q" or "M-q"
> as Emacs people calls it. However, the results were pretty disasterous:
> the editor also happily rewrapped the Python code :)

Should we make it mandatory to use emacs?

/Mads