From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 28 21:51:07 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Feb 2012 02:51:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54950 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S2ZdD-0007E0-3x for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:51:07 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33711) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S2Zcr-0007DR-Jf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:50:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S2ZcZ-0007JZ-NL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:50:28 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:38186) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S2ZcZ-0007JM-Jz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:50:27 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55728) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S2ZcX-0007PT-QQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:50:27 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S2ZcV-0007HK-Kv for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:50:25 -0500 Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com ([148.87.113.117]:35263) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S2ZcV-0007Fo-Dz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:50:23 -0500 Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id q1T2oJ4i012717 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:50:20 GMT Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1T2oICM004269 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:50:19 GMT Received: from abhmt102.oracle.com (abhmt102.oracle.com [141.146.116.54]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q1T2oFkZ012849 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:50:15 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.42.251) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:50:15 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: Subject: 24.0.94; doc of `prefix-numeric-value' Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:50:09 -0800 Message-ID: <3EEB091C18434E269C6CAF8D09DAB9C8@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: Acz2jNmu2tzToK26R8SxIY2QJYfzgg== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090201.4F4D926C.0107,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: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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: 0.8 (/) Not sure whether you'll see this as a bug. It's one of those things that is unspecified. Whether that's a good thing or not, you decide. The reason this came up is that a user was doing M-: (foo-mode t) instead of M-: (foo-mode 1). It turns out that (prefix-numeric-value t), which comes here from the `define-minor-mode' code, does evaluate to 1. But that fact is not stated anywhere in the doc (manual or doc string), AFAICT. Instead, what's said is that `prefix-numeric-value' accepts a raw prefix arg as argument and gives you the numeric prefix-arg value that corresponds to it. The argument must supposedly be "a valid raw prefix argument value". And the doc for "raw prefix arg" is pretty clear that it can never be something like `t'. The question is, should we say what `prefix-numeric-value' returns for an arg that is not a raw prefix argument? In GNU Emacs 24.0.94.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600) of 2012-02-26 on MARVIN Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600 Configured using: `configure --with-gcc (4.6) --no-opt --enable-checking --cflags -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/libXpm-3.5.8/include -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/libXpm-3.5.8/src -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/libpng-dev_1.4.3-1/include -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/zlib-dev_1.2.5-2/include -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/giflib-4.1.4-1/include -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/jpeg-6b-4/include -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/tiff-3.8.2-1/include -ID:/devel/emacs/libs/gnutls-3.0.9/include' From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 29 03:04:35 2012 Received: (at 10908) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Feb 2012 08:04:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55062 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S2eWY-0006n9-21 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:04:35 -0500 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]:47911) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S2eWK-0006mm-MJ for 10908@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:04:22 -0500 Received: from frontend1.mail.m-online.net (unknown [192.168.8.180]) by mail-out.m-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3TyTnG4Xqkz4KNFV; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:04:02 +0100 (CET) X-Auth-Info: woO0mWidMU2Is0KoTH8oz0oNtJxj2JMJoFo/72dJXFI= Received: from linux.local (ppp-88-217-121-106.dynamic.mnet-online.de [88.217.121.106]) by mail.mnet-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3TyTnG3m6rz4KK8T; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:04:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by linux.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id B827C1E52E1; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:04:01 +0100 (CET) From: Andreas Schwab To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#10908: 24.0.94; doc of `prefix-numeric-value' References: <3EEB091C18434E269C6CAF8D09DAB9C8@us.oracle.com> X-Yow: CHUBBY CHECKER owns my BUILDING! Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:04:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: <3EEB091C18434E269C6CAF8D09DAB9C8@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:50:09 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10908 Cc: 10908@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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: -1.9 (-) "Drew Adams" writes: > The question is, should we say what `prefix-numeric-value' returns for > an arg that is not a raw prefix argument? GIGO. 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 Aug 14 13:23:42 2012 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Aug 2012 17:23:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56696 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T1Kq9-0004cr-V4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:23:40 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com ([209.85.213.172]:44313) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T1Kq6-0004ci-Sq for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:23:36 -0400 Received: by yenm5 with SMTP id m5so800595yen.3 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:14:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; bh=iiaU3Ixxw6b84sLHfjx0f+jwXoPADMvOfj1FQiWtFJY=; b=GFM0BOWAolImRft5uwPHpE0CyFkujpwqRs254NuqS+GqT0AyRLjokHu3hXBlfoMg9B 4eohF6N7AHyZ2Vj2w2O39R6NQ7s6kuuPpKwoqi5gr/rIyyRl9XTye0tIUJXsW4eK5zwm nH55xcgByjhVUH5gO/WH6pAJgKOiSRWDVATVLl5rfAOAXsnDX0dHxwr8zFbf3D5cG8Ed oKs8DZN7bGAxrK71YitreJW/+TDDSCQ7OrqQuq3IlRllkpb6x2kp5MD58RHsO73geZ/l Tpnx8otlIdEFYFqFSOtj2/mCLcm06uM/EJyKM0VwqfPmPLXXYRrUU2b5FnBSTX3QHUJc t0Tg== Received: by 10.50.88.165 with SMTP id bh5mr10344616igb.50.1344964495501; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:14:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ulysses ([155.69.183.59]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hg1sm12063201igc.12.2012.08.14.10.14.53 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:14:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Chong Yidong To: control@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: close 10908 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:14:51 +0800 Message-ID: <87ipclv1is.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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 (--) tags 10908 + notabug close 10908 thanks From unknown Fri Aug 15 20:28:11 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:24:03 +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