Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Joseph Turner >> Cc: Brian Green , rms@gnu.org, 72704@debbugs.gnu.org, >> juri@linkov.net >> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 10:09:10 -0700 >> >> Eli Zaretskii writes: >> >> >> From: Brian Green >> >> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 01:29:11 -0700 >> >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , rms@gnu.org, 72704@debbugs.gnu.org, juri@linkov.net >> >> >> >> I submitted this "bug" report because I mis-interpreted the docstring, >> >> and because I was approaching this command with a preconceived idea >> >> about how it should work. I think Eli is right. I can't think of a >> >> good reason why I would need to stipulate a certain behavior before >> >> calling the command which I can already get at any point while the >> >> command is running. >> > >> > The doc string indeed could use some improvements, at least in stating >> > explicitly what happens in interactive usage and what only when called >> > from Lisp. >> >> See patch. Is the text wrapping acceptable? It looks too long in >> paragraphs.el but good in the *Help* buffer. > > Is this instead of the code change or in addition to it? Instead. > In any case, I think it would be better to say > > Noninteractively, if optional argument NO-QUERY is non-nil, make changes > without asking for confirmation. To achieve the same effect > interactively, press \\\\[automatic] at the first... Okay! With the attached patch, I'm content to close this issue.