From unknown Tue Jun 17 20:16:16 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#10057 <10057@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#10057 <10057@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Reply-To: bug#10057 <10057@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 03:16:16 +0000 retitle 10057 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' reassign 10057 emacs submitter 10057 "Drew Adams" severity 10057 minor tag 10057 notabug thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 15 15:31:53 2011 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2011 20:31:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQPfd-00021S-5E for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:31:53 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQPfb-00021C-3W for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:31:51 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQPeq-0003ll-1m for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:31:04 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]:45332) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQPep-0003le-Vm for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:31:03 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46491) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQPeo-00008v-Oa for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:31:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQPen-0003kr-Eo for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:31:02 -0500 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]:27067) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQPen-0003kN-9g for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:31:01 -0500 Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pAFKUvh5032007 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:30:58 GMT Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAFKUuhh013123 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:30:57 GMT Received: from abhmt114.oracle.com (abhmt114.oracle.com [141.146.116.66]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id pAFKUpKL019754 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:30:51 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.36.227) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:30:51 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: Subject: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:30:52 -0800 Message-ID: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acyj1XfHQQptoHLqTYqkGBt5nw2hDA== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090209.4EC2CC02.00B3,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.17 X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) "Optional second argument NOERROR, if t, means if file is not found just return nil (no error)." Sigh. This says only what a value of `t' means. It does not say what other non-nil values mean. Please state clearly and completely what NOERROR means. In GNU Emacs 24.0.91.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600) of 2011-11-14 on MARVIN Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600 configured using `configure --with-gcc (4.6) --no-opt --cflags -I"D:/devel/emacs/libs/libXpm-3.5.8/include" -I"D:/devel/emacs/libs/libXpm-3.5.8/src" -I"D:/devel/emacs/libs/libpng-dev_1.4.3-1/include" -I"D:/devel/emacs/libs/zlib-dev_1.2.5-2/include" -I"D:/devel/emacs/libs/giflib-4.1.4-1/include" -I"D:/devel/emacs/libs/jpeg-6b-4/include" -I"D:/devel/emacs/libs/tiff-3.8.2-1/include" -I"D:/devel/emacs/libs/gnutls-2.10.1/include" --ldflags -L"D:/devel/emacs/libs/gnutls-2.10.1/lib"' From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 15 16:41:06 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2011 21:41:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQQkZ-0003bp-Sj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:41:06 -0500 Received: from smarty.dreamhost.com ([208.113.175.8]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQQkW-0003bP-9h for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:41:01 -0500 Received: from ps18281.dreamhostps.com (ps18281.dreamhost.com [69.163.218.105]) by smarty.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02A436E804C; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:40:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ps18281.dreamhostps.com [69.163.218.105]) by ps18281.dreamhostps.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C0D451C5B0; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:40:09 -0800 (PST) From: Juri Linkov To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Organization: JURTA References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:39:55 +0200 In-Reply-To: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:30:52 -0800") Message-ID: <87ty65m5ec.fsf@mail.jurta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.91 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) > "Optional second argument NOERROR, if t, means if file is not found > just return nil (no error)." > > Sigh. This says only what a value of `t' means. It does not say what > other non-nil values mean. Please state clearly and completely what > NOERROR means. Do you know other possible non-nil values? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 15 16:51:16 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2011 21:51:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQQuS-0003qa-DF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:51:16 -0500 Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQQuQ-0003qS-Dn for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:51:15 -0500 Received: from faina.iro.umontreal.ca (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id pAFLoVtx019200; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:50:31 -0500 Received: by faina.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 1591713002C; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:50:31 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Message-ID: References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:50:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:30:52 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV4042=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.2.0.9286 : core <4042> : streams <701669> : uri <1007995> X-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----) > "Optional second argument NOERROR, if t, means if file is not found > just return nil (no error)." > Sigh. This says only what a value of `t' means. It does not say what > other non-nil values mean. Please state clearly and completely what > NOERROR means. Well, it does say that if you use a non-nil and non-t value, you're on your own. So the only potentially missing doc is what happens when it's absent (aka nil), which is only explained in a indirect way. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 15 16:57:06 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2011 21:57:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQR06-0003yI-0b for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:57:06 -0500 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQR04-0003xp-8P for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:57:04 -0500 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pAFLuGqX000407 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:56:16 GMT Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAFLuFq5016332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:56:16 GMT Received: from abhmt107.oracle.com (abhmt107.oracle.com [141.146.116.59]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id pAFLuATa028347; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:56:10 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.36.227) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:56:10 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Juri Linkov'" References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> <87ty65m5ec.fsf@mail.jurta.org> Subject: RE: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:56:12 -0800 Message-ID: <10D9D80D634A446E93BA4AC43B95B359@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <87ty65m5ec.fsf@mail.jurta.org> Thread-Index: Acyj3y8XKGBcqz3LTvq2umsy3bPSdgAAa3TA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090202.4EC2E001.0028,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) > > "Optional second argument NOERROR, if t, means if file is not found > > just return nil (no error)." > > > > This says only what a value of `t' means. It does not say what > > other non-nil values mean. Please state clearly and completely what > > NOERROR means. > > Do you know other possible non-nil values? No, not I. If all non-nil values are treated the same, then the doc should not single out `t'. As it stands now, it says "if t, ..." it means ..., which _suggests_ that that is the case _only_ if t. Either it is saying the wrong thing (via such a suggestion of "only") or it is incomplete (saying nothing about other non-nil values). If what is really meant is "if non-nil,...", then please just say that. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 15 17:09:13 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2011 22:09:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQRBp-0004FO-68 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:09:13 -0500 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQRBn-0004FD-U8 for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:09:12 -0500 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pAFM8NuL018114 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:08:24 GMT Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAFM8Nbn005931 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:08:23 GMT Received: from abhmt111.oracle.com (abhmt111.oracle.com [141.146.116.63]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id pAFM8HkB004256; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:08:17 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.36.227) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:08:17 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Stefan Monnier'" References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:08:19 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acyj4J9yfCfAXWiUTuS9vu7LuUsSKQAAP+QQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090206.4EC2E2D8.00E7,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) > > "Optional second argument NOERROR, if t, means if file is not found > > just return nil (no error)." > > > Sigh. This says only what a value of `t' means. It does > > not say what other non-nil values mean. Please state clearly > > and completely what NOERROR means. > > Well, it does say that if you use a non-nil and non-t value, you're on > your own. No, it does _not_ say that. It says nothing of the kind. It says nothing about non-nil and non-t. Saying nothing is not the same thing as saying you're on your own - far from it. There is zero reason to mention any particular non-nil value here, unless there really is something special about the behavior of that non-nil value. Judging by the email replies, there is not. > So the only potentially missing doc is what happens when > it's absent (aka nil), which is only explained in a indirect way. There is no problem understanding what nil does. You could have corrected this and made it crystal clear by now, by simply changing `t' to `non-nil'. Instead, defensive justification... From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 15 17:17:49 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2011 22:17:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQRK8-0004RS-JC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:17:48 -0500 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQRK5-0004RJ-4p for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:17:46 -0500 Received: from frontend1.mail.m-online.net (frontend1.mail.intern.m-online.net [192.168.8.180]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB5E9188B5BB; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:19:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (dynscan1.mnet-online.de [192.168.8.164]) by mail.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE481C00063; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:17:01 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mnet-online.de Received: from mail.mnet-online.de ([192.168.8.180]) by localhost (dynscan1.mail.m-online.net [192.168.8.164]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OtlRLnLNAZyE; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:17:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from igel.home (ppp-88-217-117-0.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.117.0]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:17:00 +0100 (CET) Received: by igel.home (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7041DCA29C; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:17:00 +0100 (CET) From: Andreas Schwab To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> <87ty65m5ec.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <10D9D80D634A446E93BA4AC43B95B359@us.oracle.com> X-Yow: QUIET!! I'm being CREATIVE!! Is it GREAT yet? It's s'posed to SMOKEY THE BEAR... Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:17:00 +0100 In-Reply-To: <10D9D80D634A446E93BA4AC43B95B359@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:56:12 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 'Juri Linkov' , 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) "Drew Adams" writes: >> > "Optional second argument NOERROR, if t, means if file is not found >> > just return nil (no error)." >> > >> > This says only what a value of `t' means. It does not say what >> > other non-nil values mean. Please state clearly and completely what >> > NOERROR means. >> >> Do you know other possible non-nil values? > > No, not I. If all non-nil values are treated the same, then the doc should not > single out `t'. As it stands now, it says "if t, ..." it means ..., which > _suggests_ that that is the case _only_ if t. You are supposed to use only the value that is documented. This is called future compatibility. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 15 17:22:03 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2011 22:22:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQROD-0004Xk-7O for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:22:02 -0500 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQROA-0004XX-4k for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:21:59 -0500 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pAFML91j032210 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:21:10 GMT Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAFML9bV024614 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:21:09 GMT Received: from abhmt116.oracle.com (abhmt116.oracle.com [141.146.116.68]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id pAFML3Fw012440; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:21:03 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.36.227) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:21:03 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Andreas Schwab'" References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com><87ty65m5ec.fsf@mail.jurta.org><10D9D80D634A446E93BA4AC43B95B359@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:21:04 -0800 Message-ID: <07F6A0871C094E70B3ED250E4B93F9EF@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acyj5FKQ4PK9ycjaTzOO/ZNNxp8b9gAABjWg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090201.4EC2E5D6.0192,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 'Juri Linkov' , 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) > You are supposed to use only the value that is documented. This is > called future compatibility. In that case, if that is truly a worry, then the doc should say that. As it is, the doc is vague and incomplete. It does not at all convey the interpretation you are adding here. Hey - pick any set of supported values and associated behaviors you like. Have them mean whatever you like. But document what they do, completely and unambiguously. If non-nil other than `t' is to be unsupported or discouraged for reasons of , then say so. Sheesh. This really should be a no-brainer. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 15 21:29:47 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 02:29:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQVFy-0001g2-QZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:29:47 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183] helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQVFw-0001fq-T3 for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:29:45 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFAPAew05MCqs//2dsb2JhbABDp06CI4EGgXIBAQQBViMQCzQSFBgNJIgVuTuKFwSIFJlwhEo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,518,1315195200"; d="scan'208";a="148168456" Received: from 76-10-171-63.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.171.63]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 15 Nov 2011 21:28:56 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id A42705936A; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:28:56 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Message-ID: References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:28:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:08:19 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) >> Well, it does say that if you use a non-nil and non-t value, you're on >> your own. > No, it does _not_ say that. Yes it does. We've been through this many times, and we know you disagree, but "not documented" generally means "you're on your own". Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 15 21:30:37 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 02:30:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQVGn-0001iB-83 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:30:37 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183] helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQVGl-0001hz-72 for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:30:35 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFAPAew05MCqs//2dsb2JhbABDp06CI4EGgXIBAQQBViMFCws0EhQYDSSIFbk7ihcEiBSZcIRK X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,518,1315195200"; d="scan'208";a="148168490" Received: from 76-10-171-63.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.171.63]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 15 Nov 2011 21:29:47 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 154365936A; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:29:47 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Message-ID: References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:29:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:08:19 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) > You could have corrected this and made it crystal clear by now, by simply > changing `t' to `non-nil'. Instead, defensive justification... After all these years, you could send patches and even install them yourself. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 15 22:06:08 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 03:06:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQVpA-0002VT-49 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:06:08 -0500 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQVp7-0002Uy-78 for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:06:06 -0500 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pAG35FFp004048 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:05:16 GMT Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAG35F22007610 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:05:15 GMT Received: from abhmt119.oracle.com (abhmt119.oracle.com [141.146.116.71]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id pAG359Be002611; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:05:09 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.58.234) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:05:09 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Stefan Monnier'" References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:05:07 -0800 Message-ID: <7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcykB6Brfc+fSy4eTLSmmhlHVnKcYQAAxjSg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090205.4EC3286C.0122,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) > > You could have corrected this and made it crystal clear by > > now, by simply changing `t' to `non-nil'. Instead, > > defensive justification... > > After all these years, you could send patches and even > install them yourself. I've sent plenty of patches, throughout "all these years", as you know. If you need a patch to change `t' to `non-nil' then there is a problem. But it's not the lack of a patch that prevents you from making this doc change, obviously. You do not _want_ to make it. You've made that clear, so don't ask for a patch for the change! - that would be the height of mauvaise foi. You apparently want a non-nil, non-t value to implicitly be considered unpredictable and unsupported ("you're on your own"), for the benefit of "future compatibility", and you apparently do not want to tell users that explicitly. So be it. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 15 22:25:05 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 03:25:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQW7V-0002wI-0l for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:25:05 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10] ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQW7S-0002wB-Nz for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:25:03 -0500 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQW6l-0005lj-QC; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:24:19 -0500 From: Glenn Morris To: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> <7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> X-Spook: CipherTAC-2000 ASPIC investigation BROMURE AVN Nazi X-Ran: =/=rkLsg$u5|mrwB`|!Qd9t%gtl\XFWe87S&fq@Tq%=:1FG#ov#\ User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) "Drew Adams" wrote: > I've sent plenty of patches, throughout "all these years", as you know. Statistics are fun! According to the ChangeLogs, 33 patches over the past 5 and a half years. 44 messages to bug-gnu-emacs so far this month. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 15 23:23:47 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 04:23:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQX2I-00051i-Df for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:23:47 -0500 Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.183] helo=ironport2-out.pppoe.ca) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQX2F-00051T-Sj for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:23:44 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApUFAPg5w05MCqs//2dsb2JhbABDpwxCgiOBBoFyAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiBW5J4oXBIgUmXCESg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,518,1315195200"; d="scan'208";a="148177821" Received: from 76-10-171-63.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.171.63]) by ironport2-out.pppoe.ca with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 15 Nov 2011 23:22:54 -0500 Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 561FA5936A; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:22:54 -0500 (EST) From: Stefan Monnier To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Message-ID: References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> <7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:22:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:05:07 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) > I've sent plenty of patches, throughout "all these years", as you know. No, I do not think you've sent plenty of them. Especially not docstring patches. > If you need a patch to change `t' to `non-nil' then there is a problem. You've overlooked the "and even install them yourself" part. > But it's not the lack of a patch that prevents you from making this > doc change, obviously. You do not _want_ to make it. The docstring you quoted has a clear meaning of "undocumented behavior for non-nil and non-t values". I do not know whether that was the intention of the original author and do not care to figure it out, so no I don't want to install such a patch. But if someone else wants to, I won't oppose it. > You apparently want a non-nil, non-t value to implicitly be considered > unpredictable and unsupported ("you're on your own"), for the benefit > of "future compatibility", and you apparently do not want to tell > users that explicitly. So be it. Saying this explicitly everywhere we rely on it would be silly. It's a general rule that applies to all software I know. Stefan From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 16 01:59:47 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 06:59:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQZTH-0000Fz-CN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:59:47 -0500 Received: from rcsinet14.oracle.com ([148.87.113.126]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQZTE-0000Fm-0Y for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:59:45 -0500 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rcsinet14.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id pAG5nZ5w015758 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:49:35 GMT Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com ([156.151.31.93]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pAG5iAjb005160 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:48:55 GMT Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAG5OUq0001366 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:25:05 GMT Received: from abhmt116.oracle.com (abhmt116.oracle.com [141.146.116.68]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id pAG5OPHB007362; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:24:25 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.58.234) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:24:25 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Stefan Monnier'" References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com><7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:24:23 -0800 Message-ID: <5C41898136234BBFA995CBC4D05B7108@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcykF2+SNqCV5FK2Tti1aYbJJEuiKAAAB1iw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: [156.151.31.93] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090204.4EC34EEF.002D,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) > > I've sent plenty of patches, throughout "all these years", > > as you know. > > No, I do not think you've sent plenty of them. Especially not > docstring patches. I've sent as many patches as I've cared to send and had time to send. If you do not consider it enough, that's your right. If more had actually been applied I might have taken the time to send more - dunno. Like yours, my contribution to Emacs is voluntary. > > If you need a patch to change `t' to `non-nil' then there > > is a problem. > > You've overlooked the "and even install them yourself" part. I do not try to install Emacs code, as you know. That's my choice. I report bugs as a user, and I offer suggestions as a user. You are free to ignore both, as you know and sometimes do. > > But it's not the lack of a patch that prevents you from making this > > doc change, obviously. You do not _want_ to make it. > > The docstring you quoted has a clear meaning of "undocumented behavior > for non-nil and non-t values". I do not know whether that was the > intention of the original author Oh? You don't know the intention? I thought that was precisely your point: The intention is clear to readers. I thought your point was that missing info is necessarily intentionally missing, and readers should know that - no need to question it. And that lack signifies no promises from Emacs Dev: unsupported, unpredictable behavior, to foster future compatibility. That's your "general rule" below, which you say applies to all software. Readers are supposed to know this, no? They are not supposed, like me, to wonder or question what is meant by this or that ambiguous or missing info. They are supposed to assume that it is undocumented by design - as in all software you know of. By your rule, you, like other readers, should be able to conclude that this apparent "oubli" was intentional. That was your claim, no? The fact that the info is missing indicates clearly to readers "you're on your own", not that somebody might have made a boo-boo when writing the doc string. I just pointed out the missing info, raising the question. I really did not know what it meant, and I thought that other users too might like to know. I know what the _code_ does: it treats all non-nil values the same. But that does not imply that that's what you want to tell users, hence the question. Your answer was: if it's missing it should be missing - Circulez, il n'y a rien a voir! So be it. > and do not care to figure it out, Yes, well, that's the point, isn't it? And that was the point of my bug report: to raise the question it turns out you don't care to figure out. It's not the "intention of the original author" that counts at this point. It's your intention that counts - what do you want here? I didn't pose it in question form, admittedly. I suggested that whatever the intention (your call), it be made clear to users. But since it's your call, every bug report is in effect a question to you, "Do you want to fix this problem I noticed?" Yes/not-a-bug/wishlist/won't-fix... Users question/propose; you answer/dispose. > so no I don't want to install such a patch. > > > You apparently want a non-nil, non-t value to implicitly be > > considered unpredictable and unsupported ("you're on your > > own"), for the benefit of "future compatibility", and you > > apparently do not want to tell users that explicitly. So be it. > > Saying this explicitly everywhere we rely on it would be silly. > It's a general rule that applies to all software I know. But you just claimed that you don't even know if this is a place where you want to rely on it - you said that you don't know the intention here. Either you do or you don't. Either this is a place to rely on your general rule or it isn't. You seem to be saying two contradictory things: 1) If info is missing then it's intentional - don't bother to report it. 2) You don't know, in this case, whether it is intentional or not. (So how would a reader know?) Apparently, we should not bother to point out when parameters to functions etc. are undefined/undescribed. We should just assume that the person who wrote the doc left out such info intentionally, relying on the "general rule" to indicate that "you're on your own" for anything that is missing or unclear. That's one approach, I guess. Your call. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 16 02:04:58 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 07:04:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQZYF-0000OF-66 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:04:57 -0500 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQZYC-0000O3-AY for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:04:53 -0500 Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pAG742Pj011019 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 07:04:02 GMT Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAG6w1TO019090 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 07:04:01 GMT Received: from abhmt112.oracle.com (abhmt112.oracle.com [141.146.116.64]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id pAG5Ns7H020579; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:23:57 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.58.234) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:23:54 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Glenn Morris'" , <10057@debbugs.gnu.org> References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com><7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:23:51 -0800 Message-ID: <8274863DA91447398387FC12E2B04608@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcykD2Vsg46QvhAzQ6KmNWlRaG8zcgAAtc8w X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090208.4EC36062.0145,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) > > I've sent plenty of patches, throughout "all these years", > > as you know. > > According to the ChangeLogs, 33 patches over the past 5 and a > half years. Which gives some indication perhaps of the acceptance of patches sent... > 44 messages to bug-gnu-emacs so far this month. ...and of the number of bugs reported but not fixed (ChangeLogs). FWIW, I count not 44 but 8 bug reports I submitted so far this month, and 16 bugs I submitted over the last 30 days. The number of messages sent indicates little about the number of bugs involved, and even less about the number of those bugs which were reported by me. I submit bug reports to help Emacs. You are free to ignore them, as you well know. > Statistics are fun! Amuse-toi bien. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 16 03:35:19 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 08:35:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQaxi-0002UU-Qn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:35:19 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10] ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQaxg-0002UN-Kp for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:35:17 -0500 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQawy-0000oP-4j; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:34:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:34:32 -0500 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: "Drew Adams" In-reply-to: <5C41898136234BBFA995CBC4D05B7108@us.oracle.com> (drew.adams@ORACLE.COM) Subject: Re: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com><7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> <5C41898136234BBFA995CBC4D05B7108@us.oracle.com> X-Spam-Score: -6.6 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.6 (------) > From: "Drew Adams" > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:24:23 -0800 > Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org > > Apparently, we should not bother to point out when parameters to functions etc. > are undefined/undescribed. No. "We" should of course report such potential omissions, but when told that the maintainers don't want to spell that out in the doc, "we" should accept their judgment, instead of raising the level of flames and continuing the argument. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 16 09:53:34 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 14:53:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQgrm-0003o5-Co for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:53:34 -0500 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQgrk-0003nr-IO for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:53:33 -0500 Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pAGEqeQU011230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:52:40 GMT Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAGEqdKJ000018 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:52:39 GMT Received: from abhmt112.oracle.com (abhmt112.oracle.com [141.146.116.64]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id pAGEqXXS032708; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:52:33 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.39.104) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:52:33 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com><7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> <5C41898136234BBFA995CBC4D05B7108@us.oracle.com> Subject: RE: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:52:29 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcykOpYWMdMBCBK4R2q+aBbm182gDAAMI4Fg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090203.4EC3CE39.0054,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) > > Apparently, we should not bother to point out when > > parameters to functions etc. are undefined/undescribed. > > No. "We" should of course report such potential omissions, Not according to Stefan's "general rule": According to that, omission indicates clearly to everyone that that the behavior is unpredictable and unsupported. > but when told that the maintainers don't want to spell that out > in the doc, "we" should accept their judgment, What judgment not to spell it out? Was the bug classified won't-fix? wishlist? not-a-bug? Nope, not yet. There was some disagreement and discussion about what the doc omission might mean to readers, but there was also: Send a patch. If someone wants to install, OK. Install it yourself. > instead of raising the level of flames and continuing the argument. It was not I who made a mountain out of this tiny molehill of a bug. It was a trivial `t' -> `non-nil' substitution to make things clear. Do it or don't do it - your choice. To me, making that change should be a no-brainer, but the suggestion nevertheless engendered quite a lot of flak. Including some that had nothing to do with this bug in particular or even such doc omissions in general - ad hominem comment about my participation in bug reporting and fixing bugs. AFAICT, there was no decision not to make that change, and no decision to make it. There was discussion about what the omission (and such omissions generall) can mean for readers. And yes, there were some flames ("fun") - about my degree of involvement in fixing bugs etc. My end of the discussion has been limited to what it is we want to tell users, and the effects that incomplete info can have (confuse readers, make them wonder). I've been clear that the choice about this proposed change is Stefan's to make, obviously. I have no problem with accepting whatever "judgment" might come. Bug reporters only raise a question; the maintainers answer it: fix/won't fix etc. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 16 12:04:50 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 17:04:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQiuo-0007Fo-2s for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:04:50 -0500 Received: from smarty.dreamhost.com ([208.113.175.8]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQiul-0007Ff-9j for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:04:49 -0500 Received: from ps18281.dreamhostps.com (ps18281.dreamhost.com [69.163.218.105]) by smarty.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965556E8074; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:04:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ps18281.dreamhostps.com [69.163.218.105]) by ps18281.dreamhostps.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D70451C5C3; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:04:00 -0800 (PST) From: Juri Linkov To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Organization: JURTA References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> <7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:03:16 +0200 In-Reply-To: <7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:05:07 -0800") Message-ID: <87wrb0p2nf.fsf@mail.jurta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.91 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) > If you need a patch to change `t' to `non-nil' then there is a problem. Drew, it's so difficult to figure out from your documentation bug reports what and how you actually want to fix, it would help greatly if you submitted patches for documentation changes. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 16 13:13:02 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 18:13:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQjyo-0001IJ-9V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:13:02 -0500 Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQjyl-0001Hm-17 for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:13:00 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LUR00E00MEYLW00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:12:06 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.184.15]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LUR00EM1MK5BJB0@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:12:06 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:10:14 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Drew Adams Message-id: <83ty64c515.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> <7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> <5C41898136234BBFA995CBC4D05B7108@us.oracle.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: , <10057@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:52:29 -0800 > > > > Apparently, we should not bother to point out when > > > parameters to functions etc. are undefined/undescribed. > > > > No. "We" should of course report such potential omissions, > > Not according to Stefan's "general rule": According to that, omission indicates > clearly to everyone that that the behavior is unpredictable and unsupported. That's a misrepresentation of what Stefan said. But you already know that. > > instead of raising the level of flames and continuing the argument. > > It was not I who made a mountain out of this tiny molehill [...] I rest my case. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 16 13:30:16 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 18:30:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQkFT-0001hh-KX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:30:16 -0500 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQkFS-0001hU-94 for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:30:14 -0500 Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pAGITLtI030173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:29:21 GMT Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAGITK2j019926 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:29:20 GMT Received: from abhmt102.oracle.com (abhmt102.oracle.com [141.146.116.54]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id pAGITEKS015996; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:29:14 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:29:13 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Juri Linkov'" References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com><7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> <87wrb0p2nf.fsf@mail.jurta.org> Subject: RE: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:29:14 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcykgcDXZHNKiWOzRi+iTjy5Z45gzgAB5YNg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 In-Reply-To: <87wrb0p2nf.fsf@mail.jurta.org> X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090207.4EC40102.0009,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) > Drew, it's __so difficult__ to figure out from your documentation > bug reports what and how you actually want to fix It's a joke, right? What part of this problem statement (your "what") is so difficult to understand? >> This says only what a value of `t' means. >> It does not say what other non-nil values mean. As to "how" I would like it to be fixed, that really doesn't matter much, does it? It should be enough to point out the problem, especially in a trivial case such as this. In any case, I did say how I would like to see it fixed: >> Please state clearly and completely what NOERROR means. However that might be done would be fine with me. The "how" isn't important. So far, we explain what a `nil' value means and what a `t' value means. That's clear as far as it goes, but it is not complete, which means that in the end it is also not clear. Singling out the particular non-nil value `t' this way leaves the reader wondering. Unless, that is, s?he assumes Stefan's general rule that anything not mentioned is unpredictable and unsupported. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 16 13:31:04 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 18:31:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQkGF-0001jB-E0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:31:03 -0500 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQkGA-0001iS-DZ for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:31:01 -0500 Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pAGIU5W2000754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:30:05 GMT Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAGIU4MS020989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:30:04 GMT Received: from abhmt103.oracle.com (abhmt103.oracle.com [141.146.116.55]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id pAGITw9c021565; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:29:58 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:29:58 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> <7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> <5C41898136234BBFA995CBC4D05B7108@us.oracle.com> <83ty64c515.fsf@gnu.org> Subject: RE: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:29:59 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acyki0V7W+d6BrQCRUG9oLmZlg6enQAAGhwg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 In-Reply-To: <83ty64c515.fsf@gnu.org> X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090207.4EC4012E.0041,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) > > Not according to Stefan's "general rule": According to > > that, omission indicates clearly to everyone that that > > the behavior is unpredictable and unsupported. > > That's a misrepresentation of what Stefan said. No, I don't think so: >> You apparently want a non-nil, non-t value to implicitly be >> considered unpredictable and unsupported ("you're on your own"), ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> for the benefit of "future compatibility", and you apparently >> do not want to tell users that explicitly. > > Saying this explicitly everywhere we rely on it would be silly. > It's a general rule that applies to all software I know. What part of what he said does _not_ confirm that he claims that omission implicitly indicates to readers that the behavior is unpredictable and unsupported? And again: > Well, [the doc string] does say that if you use a non-nil > and non-t value, you're on your own. The doc string says nothing explicit about non-nil and non-t. His claim is that it says this implicitly, by omission. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 16 13:57:28 2011 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 18:57:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQkfo-0002MG-Ev for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:57:28 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQkZc-0002Cj-BW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:51:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQkYl-00044v-Hn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:50:12 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]:58020) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQkYl-00044r-GM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:50:11 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42282) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQkYk-0003LI-GG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:50:11 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQkYj-00044I-Eg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:50:10 -0500 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:53937) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQkYj-00043j-9Z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:50:09 -0500 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQkYh-0006JC-Iv for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:50:07 +0100 Received: from e178213104.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.213.104]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:50:07 +0100 Received: from gegendosenfleisch by e178213104.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:50:07 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org From: Memnon Anon Subject: Re: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:43:53 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 36 Message-ID: <87ty643pub.fsf@mean.albasani.net> References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> <7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: e178213104.adsl.alicedsl.de Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZocFZAXk7iCc2Vot/2oZUdOUTMU= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.17 X-Spam-Score: -5.9 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:57:27 -0500 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -5.9 (-----) Stefan Monnier writes: >> You apparently want a non-nil, non-t value to implicitly be considered >> unpredictable and unsupported ("you're on your own"), for the benefit >> of "future compatibility", and you apparently do not want to tell >> users that explicitly. So be it. > > Saying this explicitly everywhere we rely on it would be silly. > It's a general rule that applies to all software I know. ,----[ (info "(elisp)Documentation Tips") ] | * The documentation string for a variable that is a yes-or-no flag | should start with words such as "Non-nil means," to make it clear ! that all non-`nil' values are equivalent and indicate explicitly | what `nil' and non-`nil' mean. `---- How is this so much different? The function checks for '(if noerror ...' , so "non-nil" matches what the function actually does more precisely. Future compatibility? The sentence in the docstring dates back to 2004, for all versions since then, the test was always '(if noerror ...'. When is this future to come? If there were plans to differentiate 't' from other non-nil values, I think they got lost :). And it's not like the file is under heavy development and an ever moving target, anyways ... Whatever, this teeny tiny issue got way more attention than it deserved in the first place I guess, so ... I'll stop now ;) Memnon From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 16 14:36:09 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 19:36:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQlHE-0003HM-Mo for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:36:09 -0500 Received: from smarty.dreamhost.com ([208.113.175.8]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQlHC-0003HD-1G for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:36:06 -0500 Received: from ps18281.dreamhostps.com (ps18281.dreamhost.com [69.163.218.105]) by smarty.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9747C6E80A6; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:35:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ps18281.dreamhostps.com [69.163.218.105]) by ps18281.dreamhostps.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB680451C5C3; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:35:18 -0800 (PST) From: Juri Linkov To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Organization: JURTA References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> <7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> <87wrb0p2nf.fsf@mail.jurta.org> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:31:55 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:29:14 -0800") Message-ID: <871ut7x3ro.fsf@mail.jurta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.91 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) > What part of this problem statement (your "what") is so difficult > to understand? > > >> This says only what a value of `t' means. > >> It does not say what other non-nil values mean. This statement implies that there are other non-nil values that should be documented. I'm not aware of other non-nil values you are talking about. > In any case, I did say how I would like to see it fixed: > > >> Please state clearly and completely what NOERROR means. Such unclear statements are of no help until you explain what do you mean by "clearly". From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 16 14:58:58 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 19:58:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQldJ-0003pz-Va for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:58:58 -0500 Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQldI-0003pn-4W for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:58:57 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LUR00H00RCZ0500@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:58:02 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.184.15]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LUR00FMORGPELM0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:58:02 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:56:10 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' In-reply-to: <87ty643pub.fsf@mean.albasani.net> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Memnon Anon Message-id: <83r517dep1.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> <7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> <87ty643pub.fsf@mean.albasani.net> X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) > From: Memnon Anon > Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:43:53 +0000 (UTC) > > ,----[ (info "(elisp)Documentation Tips") ] > | * The documentation string for a variable that is a yes-or-no flag > | should start with words such as "Non-nil means," to make it clear > ! that all non-`nil' values are equivalent and indicate explicitly > | what `nil' and non-`nil' mean. > `---- > > How is this so much different? It is different because it's not a yes-or-no flag. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 16 15:05:47 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 20:05:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQljv-0004ji-6J for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:05:47 -0500 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQljr-0004jV-B5 for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:05:44 -0500 Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pAGK4nQt023115 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:04:50 GMT Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAGK4nPY008090 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:04:49 GMT Received: from abhmt118.oracle.com (abhmt118.oracle.com [141.146.116.70]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id pAGK4hih013882; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:04:43 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:04:40 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: "'Juri Linkov'" References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com><7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com><87wrb0p2nf.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <871ut7x3ro.fsf@mail.jurta.org> Subject: RE: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:04:47 -0800 Message-ID: <7E855B9DA1F942EC92061D42CBA989E9@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcykluPASBXB2PhxTZKtKEMJG2NfjAAALG1g X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 In-Reply-To: <871ut7x3ro.fsf@mail.jurta.org> X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090208.4EC41762.011C,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) > > What part of this problem statement (your "what") is so difficult > > to understand? > > > > >> This says only what a value of `t' means. > > >> It does not say what other non-nil values mean. > > This statement implies that there are other non-nil values that should > be documented. No, it does not imply that, if by that you mean particular non-nil values. But it might have been clearer if I had added "might": "It does not say what other non-nil values might mean." IOW, there is nothing in my statement that implies that there are other non-nil values that act differently from `t'. The point was that non-nil other than t is not addressed. So yes, there are other non-nil values, and yes, something should be said about them. If they are in the same boat as `t', then there is nothing particular to say about any of them - including `t': just say "non-nil". Anyway, you already raised that question for clarification and I answered it: >> > Do you know other possible non-nil values? >> >> No, not I. If all non-nil values are treated the same, then >> the doc should not single out `t'. As it stands now, it says >> "if t, ..." it means ..., which _suggests_ that that is the case >> _only_ if t. >> >> Either it is saying the wrong thing (via such a suggestion of >> "only") or it is incomplete (saying nothing about other non-nil >> values). >> >> If what is really meant is "if non-nil,...", then please just >> say that. > I'm not aware of other non-nil values you are > talking about. Again. You asked that already and I answered it. But "you are talking about" is incorrect - I did not talk about any other particular non-nil values. The point is that there _are_ other non-nil values besides `t', and the doc string does not cover them (but the code handles them, and exactly like `t'). If they are intended (NB _intended_) to act the same as `t', then the doc string should simply say "non-nil", not "t". There is no reason to single out `t' here, any more than 42 or `Juri'. Unless there is a reason - and in that case, it should be passed along to the users. It's about making things clear to readers; nothing more than that. What happens if the value is 42? Readers wonder (I did, for one) and they have the right to know. Without having to look in the code to find out. If you want to say that non-nil and non-t is unpredictable and unsupported, that's fine, and clear. Saying nothing leaves readers wondering. > > In any case, I did say how I would like to see it fixed: > > > > >> Please state clearly and completely what NOERROR means. > > Such unclear statements are of no help until you explain > what do you mean by "clearly". Doesn't really matter what I mean by "clearly". As I said, the "how" is not important. Fix it anyway you like - choose your own meaning of "clearly" and "completely". Come on. Today, non-nil values other than `t' are not described _at all_. So any description of them that is at all accurate would be an improvement in clarity and completeness. You are making a big deal out of nothing. If some other user had reported this bug, saying only "Please change `t' to `non-nil'", would there have been such a clamor? I wonder. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 16 15:33:01 2011 Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 20:33:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQmAH-0005NI-B6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:33:01 -0500 Received: from smarty.dreamhost.com ([208.113.175.8]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQmAE-0005N9-PN for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:32:59 -0500 Received: from ps18281.dreamhostps.com (ps18281.dreamhost.com [69.163.218.105]) by smarty.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE256E8057; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:32:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (ps18281.dreamhostps.com [69.163.218.105]) by ps18281.dreamhostps.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104D7451C518; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:32:10 -0800 (PST) From: Juri Linkov To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Organization: JURTA References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com> <7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> <87wrb0p2nf.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <871ut7x3ro.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <7E855B9DA1F942EC92061D42CBA989E9@us.oracle.com> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:28:04 +0200 In-Reply-To: <7E855B9DA1F942EC92061D42CBA989E9@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:04:47 -0800") Message-ID: <87r517u7zz.fsf@mail.jurta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.91 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10057 Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) > If some other user had reported this bug, saying only "Please change `t' to > `non-nil'", would there have been such a clamor? I wonder. There would be no such a clamor if you reported this bug saying clearly and completely "Please change `t' to `non-nil'". And the best way to achieve such clearness and completeness of your requirements is by submitting a patch. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Nov 21 01:24:50 2011 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Nov 2011 06:24:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RSNJB-0001fW-Vw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 01:24:50 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RSNJA-0001fQ-6r for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 01:24:48 -0500 Received: from [155.69.17.150] (port=54025 helo=furball) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RSNHz-0008Gd-7D for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 01:23:35 -0500 From: Chong Yidong To: control@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: close 10057 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:23:26 +0800 Message-ID: <87obw63sf5.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -6.6 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.6 (------) tags 10057 + notabug close 10057 thanks From unknown Tue Jun 17 20:16:16 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:24:03 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator