From unknown Fri Sep 12 04:33:55 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#12853: 24.2.50; doc of `color-defined-p' Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:47:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 12853 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 12853@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.13525660197609 (code B ref -1); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:47:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Nov 2012 16:46:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59720 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXECx-0001yf-1I for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:59 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56271) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXECu-0001yY-EF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:57 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXECd-0008Qs-I2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:42 -0500 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:50237) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXECd-0008Qm-Es for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:39 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35350) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXECa-0005jb-CT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:39 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXECX-0008Pz-9w for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:36 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:28947) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXECX-0008Po-2u for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:33 -0500 Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qAAGkVFx007507 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:46:32 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 qAAGkUsS020504 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:46:31 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 qAAGkUvG009410 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:46:30 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/71.202.147.44) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:46:30 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:46:24 -0800 Message-ID: <10495ABA26F14041A1E374AC3B820F6E@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: Ac2/YuuxI1yih7lXSreq2CWOuEFaSA== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -3.4 (---) 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: -4.2 (----) The doc string is missing the most basic information: What data type parameter COLOR is. It should say that COLOR must be a string or the symbol `unspecified' (an error is raised otherwise). It should say that the string can be any string, and that the function returns non-nil for #1 or #2, and nil otherwise: 1. a defined (recognized) color name 2. a color RGB code, with prefix `#' The doc should not say anything about the particular strings "unspecified-fg" or "unspecified-bg": there is nothing special about them. The function returns nil for ANY string other than #1 or #2. Consider adding to the doc string the "Note..." that is in the Elisp manual and that refers to `color-supported-p'. For the Elisp manual doc of `color-defined-p': change "X" to "X Window". If the same bug occurs elsewhere in the manual, please fix those occurrences too. In GNU Emacs 24.2.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600) of 2012-10-22 on DANI-PC Bzr revision: 110618 monnier@iro.umontreal.ca-20121022132928-232zm0fecassmhfb Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600 Configured using: `configure --with-gcc (4.7) --no-opt --enable-checking --cflags -I../../libs/libxpm-3.5.8/include -I../../libs/libxpm-3.5.8/src -I../../libs/libpng-1.4.10 -I../../libs/zlib-1.2.6 -I../../libs/giflib-4.1.4-1/include -I../../libs/jpeg-6b-4/include -I../../libs/tiff-3.8.2-1/include -I../../libs/libxml2-2.7.8-w32-bin/include/libxml2 -I../../libs/gnutls-3.0.16/include -I../../libs/libiconv-1.14-2-mingw32-dev/include' From unknown Fri Sep 12 04:33:55 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#12853: 24.2.50; doc of `color-defined-p' Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:51:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 12853 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Drew Adams Cc: 12853@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 12853-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B12853.135256983913037 (code B ref 12853); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 17:51:02 +0000 Received: (at 12853) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Nov 2012 17:50:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59737 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXFCZ-0003OE-Bp for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:50:39 -0500 Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:57139) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXFCV-0003O1-HF for 12853@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:50:37 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MDA009009HPWG00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 12853@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:49:58 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MDA009EK9J9I7A0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:49:58 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:50:07 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii In-reply-to: <10495ABA26F14041A1E374AC3B820F6E@us.oracle.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il Message-id: <83d2zlxs8g.fsf@gnu.org> References: <10495ABA26F14041A1E374AC3B820F6E@us.oracle.com> X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: > From: "Drew Adams" > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:46:24 -0800 > > It should say that the string can be any string, and that the function > returns non-nil for #1 or #2, and nil otherwise: > > 1. a defined (recognized) color name > 2. a color RGB code, with prefix `#' > > The doc should not say anything about the particular strings > "unspecified-fg" or "unspecified-bg": there is nothing special about > them. The function returns nil for ANY string other than #1 or #2. [...] Content analysis details: (1.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.179.55.172 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 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: 1.5 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: > From: "Drew Adams" > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:46:24 -0800 > > It should say that the string can be any string, and that the function > returns non-nil for #1 or #2, and nil otherwise: > > 1. a defined (recognized) color name > 2. a color RGB code, with prefix `#' > > The doc should not say anything about the particular strings > "unspecified-fg" or "unspecified-bg": there is nothing special about > them. The function returns nil for ANY string other than #1 or #2. [...] Content analysis details: (1.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.179.55.172 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] > From: "Drew Adams" > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:46:24 -0800 > > It should say that the string can be any string, and that the function > returns non-nil for #1 or #2, and nil otherwise: > > 1. a defined (recognized) color name > 2. a color RGB code, with prefix `#' > > The doc should not say anything about the particular strings > "unspecified-fg" or "unspecified-bg": there is nothing special about > them. The function returns nil for ANY string other than #1 or #2. They _are_ special, because they are recognized color names. From unknown Fri Sep 12 04:33:55 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#12853: 24.2.50; doc of `color-defined-p' Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:13:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 12853 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Cc: 12853@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 12853-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B12853.135257118014950 (code B ref 12853); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:13:02 +0000 Received: (at 12853) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Nov 2012 18:13:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59755 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXFYC-0003t5-49 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:13:00 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:27557) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXFY9-0003sx-BB for 12853@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:12:58 -0500 Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qAAICflB018967 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:12:42 GMT Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAAICfbm028188 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:12:41 GMT Received: from abhmt104.oracle.com (abhmt104.oracle.com [141.146.116.56]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qAAICefh011758; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:12:40 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/71.202.147.44) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:12:40 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" References: <10495ABA26F14041A1E374AC3B820F6E@us.oracle.com> <83d2zlxs8g.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:12:34 -0800 Message-ID: <7DA4A38C21E342A8A4061EC7D8257556@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: <83d2zlxs8g.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: Ac2/a9uVV88xW128T4K+Xjhu6KEecgAAFuPQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) 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: 0.4 (/) > > It should say that the string can be any string, and that > > the function returns non-nil for #1 or #2, and nil otherwise: > > > > 1. a defined (recognized) color name > > 2. a color RGB code, with prefix `#' > > > > The doc should not say anything about the particular strings > > "unspecified-fg" or "unspecified-bg": there is nothing special about > > them. The function returns nil for ANY string other than #1 or #2. > > They _are_ special, because they are recognized color names. Fine, then change #1 to "a defined color name other than `unspecified-fg' and `unspecified-bg'". However, I do not see either of those names returned by `defined-colors', which has the same handling of optional arg FRAME as `color-defined-p'. Perhaps that function does include those two names sometimes, under some circumstances? Dunno - you tell me. If so, then the exceptional treatment of these two pseudo color names (recognized as colors sometimes, in some contexts) seems like an ugly kludge. If so, and if the kludge is kept, then, by all means, feel free to make the minor correction cited above. In that case, please also mention in the doc that "defined color" is determined by function `defined-colors', i.e., if it is the case that `defined-colors' can in fact sometimes include these pseudocolors in its return value. Mentioning that might help users navigate the messy exceptionalism. In that case, too, the doc of `defined-colors' should be corrected to mention these weird exceptions. Perhaps it can call out the circumstances under which these noncolors are included in its return value. On the other hand, if `defined-colors' in fact always DTRT - never returns those noncolors, then the doc for `color-defined-p' should say just what I stated originally. You can simply add that "defined color" here is per `defined-colors'. IOW, in this case, there is no need to mention these noncolors, because they do not fit #1 or #2. From unknown Fri Sep 12 04:33:55 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#12853: 24.2.50; doc of `color-defined-p' Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:34:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 12853 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Drew Adams Cc: 12853@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 12853-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B12853.135257240316762 (code B ref 12853); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:34:02 +0000 Received: (at 12853) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Nov 2012 18:33:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59799 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXFru-0004MJ-Kx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:33:22 -0500 Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:34815) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXFrs-0004M8-0V for 12853@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:33:21 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MDA00A00BGRA900@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 12853@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:33:04 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MDA00AQBBJ43940@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:33:04 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:33:13 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii In-reply-to: <7DA4A38C21E342A8A4061EC7D8257556@us.oracle.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il Message-id: <83bof5xq8m.fsf@gnu.org> References: <10495ABA26F14041A1E374AC3B820F6E@us.oracle.com> <83d2zlxs8g.fsf@gnu.org> <7DA4A38C21E342A8A4061EC7D8257556@us.oracle.com> X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <12853@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:12:34 -0800 > > However, I do not see either of those names returned by `defined-colors', which > has the same handling of optional arg FRAME as `color-defined-p'. Perhaps that > function does include those two names sometimes, under some circumstances? > Dunno - you tell me. [...] Content analysis details: (1.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.179.55.172 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 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: 1.5 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <12853@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:12:34 -0800 > > However, I do not see either of those names returned by `defined-colors', which > has the same handling of optional arg FRAME as `color-defined-p'. Perhaps that > function does include those two names sometimes, under some circumstances? > Dunno - you tell me. [...] Content analysis details: (1.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.179.55.172 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <12853@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:12:34 -0800 > > However, I do not see either of those names returned by `defined-colors', which > has the same handling of optional arg FRAME as `color-defined-p'. Perhaps that > function does include those two names sometimes, under some circumstances? > Dunno - you tell me. defined-colors will also report only the 8 or 16 colors defined "natively" on a TTY, while color-defined-p will tell that, say, "DarkSeaGreen" is also "defined". Here, try this in "emacs -Q -nw": M-: (defined-colors) RET => ("black" "blue" "green" "cyan" "red" "magenta" "brown" "lightgray" "darkgray" "lightblue" "lightgreen" "lightcyan" "lightred" "lightmagenta" "yellow" "white") But M-: (color-defined-p "DarkSeaGreen") RET => t So these two functions do not support 1-to-1 correspondence of color names, as you seem to assume. That's because the purpose of these functions is different: defined-colors only return the "basic" colors supported by the current frame, while color-defined-p reports whether the frame can _display_ a given color. > If so, then the exceptional treatment of these two pseudo color names > (recognized as colors sometimes, in some contexts) seems like an ugly kludge. We need those pseudo-colors to express the unknown fore- and back-ground colors used by TTY frames on displays that cannot report what those default colors are. It is a kludge to some extent, because these colors obviously can be displayed, but having them return non-nil from color-defined-p gets in the way. This the note in the doc string. > In that case, please also mention in the doc that "defined color" is determined > by function `defined-colors' It isn't, see above. > On the other hand, if `defined-colors' in fact always DTRT - never returns those > noncolors, then the doc for `color-defined-p' should say just what I stated > originally. That would remove information that's important for someone who writes code which manipulates color names at a low level where these distinctions are important. It was important for me when I did that, and so I would object to removing this. From unknown Fri Sep 12 04:33:55 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#12853: 24.2.50; doc of `color-defined-p' Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:57:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 12853 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Cc: 12853@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 12853-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B12853.135257379120508 (code B ref 12853); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:57:01 +0000 Received: (at 12853) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Nov 2012 18:56:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59845 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXGEI-0005Kg-8G for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:56:31 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:39048) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXGEF-0005KV-Pd for 12853@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:56:28 -0500 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qAAIuCfT007061 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:56:12 GMT Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAAIuBJ3001910 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:56:11 GMT Received: from abhmt119.oracle.com (abhmt119.oracle.com [141.146.116.71]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qAAIuBAu016568; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:56:11 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/71.202.147.44) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:56:10 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" References: <10495ABA26F14041A1E374AC3B820F6E@us.oracle.com> <83d2zlxs8g.fsf@gnu.org> <7DA4A38C21E342A8A4061EC7D8257556@us.oracle.com> <83bof5xq8m.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:56:04 -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: <83bof5xq8m.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: Ac2/cdPYxRTlKgQxTI6RhJpEl6lwtgAAa1EA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) 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: 0.4 (/) > So these two functions do not support 1-to-1 correspondence of color > names, as you seem to assume. I do not assume anything about these functions. > That would remove information that's important for someone who writes > code which manipulates color names at a low level where these > distinctions are important. It was important for me when I did that, > and so I would object to removing this. I'm not asking you to remove anything. I'm asking that the doc be corrected and made more clear and complete. If you feel it is important to mention those two noncolors here, please do so. And consider mentioning also why that is important: why this function deals with such exceptions. If it is not appropriate to mention `defined-colors' here then, by all means, do not do so. I was hunting for some definition of "defined color" that might be pertinent here, but apparently that was a false route. In any case, please make clear here just what is meant by a "defined color" in this context, and how that definition relates to those particular noncolor defined-color exceptions. This is all the more important if, as seems to be the case, "defined color" here is something not at all obvious, with kludgy exceptions. IOW, if the meaning of "defined color" here were straightforward and we could simply point to some other function (e.g. `defined-colors'), then doing that would be appropriate and sufficient to make clear what that term means here. Since the meaning is NOT obvious or straightforward, it needs to be provided (explained). From unknown Fri Sep 12 04:33:55 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#12853: 24.2.50; doc of `color-defined-p' Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:19:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 12853 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Drew Adams Cc: 12853@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 12853-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B12853.135257512322934 (code B ref 12853); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:19:03 +0000 Received: (at 12853) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Nov 2012 19:18:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59981 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXGZn-0005xr-4C for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:18:43 -0500 Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:45148) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXGZk-0005xi-I1 for 12853@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:18:41 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MDA00A00D4JN700@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 12853@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 21:17:43 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MDA00A4HDLILD40@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 21:17:43 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 21:17:52 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il Message-id: <83625dxo67.fsf@gnu.org> References: <10495ABA26F14041A1E374AC3B820F6E@us.oracle.com> <83d2zlxs8g.fsf@gnu.org> <7DA4A38C21E342A8A4061EC7D8257556@us.oracle.com> <83bof5xq8m.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <12853@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:56:04 -0800 > > I'm asking that the doc be corrected and made more clear and > complete. Fine with me. I didn't want to imply that the doc string should not be corrected. I just wanted to explain why unspecified-* "colors" are exceptions, and why they are mentioned in the doc string. [...] Content analysis details: (1.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.179.55.172 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 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: 1.5 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <12853@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:56:04 -0800 > > I'm asking that the doc be corrected and made more clear and > complete. Fine with me. I didn't want to imply that the doc string should not be corrected. I just wanted to explain why unspecified-* "colors" are exceptions, and why they are mentioned in the doc string. [...] Content analysis details: (1.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.179.55.172 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <12853@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:56:04 -0800 > > I'm asking that the doc be corrected and made more clear and > complete. Fine with me. I didn't want to imply that the doc string should not be corrected. I just wanted to explain why unspecified-* "colors" are exceptions, and why they are mentioned in the doc string. > In any case, please make clear here just what is meant by a "defined color" in > this context This is already part of the doc string: Return non-nil if color COLOR is supported on frame FRAME. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Supported" means you can use COLOR in any context where a color is expected, and the display will show that color without signaling an error. > and how that definition relates to those particular noncolor > defined-color exceptions. This would require to delve too deep into the internals, which might not be appropriate for a doc string. > IOW, if the meaning of "defined color" here were straightforward and we could > simply point to some other function (e.g. `defined-colors'), then doing that > would be appropriate and sufficient to make clear what that term means here. > Since the meaning is NOT obvious or straightforward, it needs to be provided > (explained). I don't understand why you are looking for a definition, beyond the simple one stated in the doc string, when the function we are talking about, color-defined-p, provides that definition: a "defined color" for the purposes of this function is something for which this function returns a non-nil value. From unknown Fri Sep 12 04:33:55 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#12853: 24.2.50; doc of `color-defined-p' Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:53:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 12853 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Cc: 12853@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 12853-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B12853.135257712325914 (code B ref 12853); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:53:02 +0000 Received: (at 12853) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Nov 2012 19:52:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60019 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXH62-0006jk-Cu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:52:02 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:28349) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXH5y-0006jV-T4 for 12853@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:52:00 -0500 Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qAAJpgps001874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:51:43 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 qAAJpfdL005756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:51:42 GMT Received: from abhmt104.oracle.com (abhmt104.oracle.com [141.146.116.56]) by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qAAJpf9I024564; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:51:41 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/71.202.147.44) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:51:41 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" References: <10495ABA26F14041A1E374AC3B820F6E@us.oracle.com> <83d2zlxs8g.fsf@gnu.org> <7DA4A38C21E342A8A4061EC7D8257556@us.oracle.com> <83bof5xq8m.fsf@gnu.org> <83625dxo67.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:51:34 -0800 Message-ID: <7CA6F6AC77DD43628A282DCB8936E7B7@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: <83625dxo67.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: Ac2/eCrhseiIU+KPTwuFXGTB3TFpTwAAJacQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) 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: 0.4 (/) > > In any case, please make clear here just what is meant by a > > "defined color" in this context > > This is already part of the doc string: > Return non-nil if color COLOR is supported on frame FRAME. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Now we're going around in circles. That was precisely why I (mistakenly) mentioned function `defined-colors'. It says exactly the same thing for parameter FRAME. Yet the meanings of color support for FRAME are apparently quite different for these two functions. It is not obvious what a defined color is in each case. The explanation/definition cannot be circular or lead to contradictions or ambiguity like that. Please say what it means for a color to be defined for `color-defined-p', without making a vague reference to the colors that are "supported" on FRAME. It is precisely what "support" means here that is in question. And that support differs, apparently, for different color-distinguishing functions. So please explain what color "support" means for this function - and separately for function `defined-colors'. The object is to bring MORE light, not less, on the matter. Just what IS a defined color for each of these functions? Saying that it is whatever the implementation sees is supported by FRAME is a complete copout, AFAICT. > "Supported" means you can use COLOR in any context where a color is > expected, and the display will show that color without signaling an > error. Does the display show COLOR even when it is `unspecified-bg'? It's not at all clear to me what these exceptions are about, or why & how "supported" for FRAME differs between these two functions, each of whose name suggests that it distinguishes defined colors from undefined colors and noncolor junk. > > and how that definition relates to those particular noncolor > > defined-color exceptions. > > This would require to delve too deep into the internals, which might > not be appropriate for a doc string. In that case, something is wrong. If we cannot tell programmers, in a straightforward way, which strings are defined as colors for `color-defined-p' and for `defined-colors', then we might as well call these functions `mystery-1' and `mystery-2'. Dunno what else to say about that. You seem to be saying that we cannot say what these functions do because their implementations are so complex that doing so would send readers into the bowels of the code and its meaning. That is typically a good sign that something might be amiss. > > IOW, if the meaning of "defined color" here were > > straightforward and we could simply point to some other > > function (e.g. `defined-colors'), then doing that > > would be appropriate and sufficient to make clear what that > > term means here. Since the meaning is NOT obvious or > > straightforward, it needs to be provided (explained). > > I don't understand why you are looking for a definition, Is this a joke? Suppose I say, "Here is a predicate `foo-p'. It returns non-nil for a legitimate foo, and nil otherwise." Do you have any idea what `foo-p' does for the argument "abcde"? Apparently, what a defined color is, which is exactly what this predicate presumably tests/distinguishes (likewise `defined-colors', though apparently with a different meaning), is a mystery and something quite out of the ordinary. So yes, especially in that case it is important to say what we mean: just what does each of these functions think a "defined color" is? > beyond the simple one stated in the doc string, when the function > we are talking about, color-defined-p, provides that definition: > > a "defined color" for the purposes of this function is something > for which this function returns a non-nil value. Well, I'm sorry to say that if that isn't a useless explanation then I don't know what is. Function `foo-p' distinguishes foos from non-foos. What's a foo? Whatever `foo-p' returns non-nil for. Well, sure, OK, but can't you give users an idea, beyond that? How could they possibly make use of `foo-p', without first testing it on all possible inputs, to see what it really does? I can hardly believe we're having this conversation. Feel free to ignore or close the bug, if it doesn't help. From unknown Fri Sep 12 04:33:55 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#12853: 24.2.50; doc of `color-defined-p' Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:26:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 12853 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Drew Adams Cc: 12853@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 12853-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B12853.135257914728747 (code B ref 12853); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:26:01 +0000 Received: (at 12853) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Nov 2012 20:25:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60054 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXHcg-0007Tb-KR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:25:46 -0500 Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:54546) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXHcd-0007TS-5C for 12853@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:25:45 -0500 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MDA00300GKH2500@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for 12853@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:25:27 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MDA00201GQEX890@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:25:27 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:25:36 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii In-reply-to: <7CA6F6AC77DD43628A282DCB8936E7B7@us.oracle.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il Message-id: <834nkxxl1b.fsf@gnu.org> References: <10495ABA26F14041A1E374AC3B820F6E@us.oracle.com> <83d2zlxs8g.fsf@gnu.org> <7DA4A38C21E342A8A4061EC7D8257556@us.oracle.com> <83bof5xq8m.fsf@gnu.org> <83625dxo67.fsf@gnu.org> <7CA6F6AC77DD43628A282DCB8936E7B7@us.oracle.com> X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <12853@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:51:34 -0800 > > I can hardly believe we're having this conversation. Me too. I wanted to help you understand something better, and look where this got me. Should have known better and shut up. [...] Content analysis details: (1.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.179.55.169 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 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: 1.5 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <12853@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:51:34 -0800 > > I can hardly believe we're having this conversation. Me too. I wanted to help you understand something better, and look where this got me. Should have known better and shut up. [...] Content analysis details: (1.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.179.55.169 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4999] > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: <12853@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:51:34 -0800 > > I can hardly believe we're having this conversation. Me too. I wanted to help you understand something better, and look where this got me. Should have known better and shut up. > Feel free to ignore or close the bug, if it doesn't help. I didn't object to the bug report, nor to the request to make the doc strings more clear and informative. So there's no reason for me to close the bug. From unknown Fri Sep 12 04:33:55 2025 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.428 (Entity 5.428) X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org From: help-debbugs@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System) To: "Drew Adams" Subject: bug#12853: closed (Re: bug#12853: 24.2.50; doc of `color-defined-p') Message-ID: References: <87obioah20.fsf@gnu.org> <10495ABA26F14041A1E374AC3B820F6E@us.oracle.com> X-Gnu-PR-Message: they-closed 12853 X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs Reply-To: 12853@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 07:59:02 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1353657542-17576-1" This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1353657542-17576-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Your bug report #12853: 24.2.50; doc of `color-defined-p' which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed. The explanation is attached below, along with your original report. If you require more details, please reply to 12853@debbugs.gnu.org. --=20 12853: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D12853 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems ------------=_1353657542-17576-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at 12853-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Nov 2012 07:58:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33943 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tbo9B-0004Xz-Cf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:58:05 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.220.44]:58088) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tbo96-0004Xk-2B for 12853-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:58:00 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id hz11so4199411pad.3 for <12853-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 23:56:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=fi8Jbhc0dUFstX+9xaM0UfRDYEHmmya1ybZoxT42mFM=; b=cy8ucJ3wD3f4sBXHOyt2Ne5hSghEKOKZ69sOk7HuwWQYp0GE9mcOrA6TbY2LoSfen+ oYtHppgiNa+kc3cbSbbjyPEc9y+D5M4+J1ccsbO07YI6HkFtFSIEVmAdOdfnujD+88W2 VCqwMsGgaYn2wOaqzJKhCHUJTFhwWn4HmFU9fMNcvobZquIAUnWaY24fkO7XHjnnjMvD Cq0Byo5EyEE8TwCM+PPz+K3m9JTt1j/OBn2xJjyoKWD8+6TJaRxgOt2FZCRi3YlsFLS5 J7WowCEPPTyRNw2mUgAa4TIo8LoYlMyaakO/nijR/Gv3VCqQfgtmJ1HVK5RYhLUYfGzS alXA== Received: by 10.68.254.137 with SMTP id ai9mr12095183pbd.21.1353657390357; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 23:56:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from ulysses ([155.69.19.206]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ms11sm3411467pbc.74.2012.11.22.23.56.26 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 22 Nov 2012 23:56:29 -0800 (PST) From: Chong Yidong To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#12853: 24.2.50; doc of `color-defined-p' References: <10495ABA26F14041A1E374AC3B820F6E@us.oracle.com> Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:56:23 +0800 In-Reply-To: <10495ABA26F14041A1E374AC3B820F6E@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:46:24 -0800") Message-ID: <87obioah20.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12853-done Cc: 12853-done@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: -0.7 (/) "Drew Adams" writes: > The doc string is missing the most basic information: What data type > parameter COLOR is. It should say that COLOR must be a string or the > symbol `unspecified' (an error is raised otherwise). Fixed, thanks. ------------=_1353657542-17576-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Nov 2012 16:46:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59720 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXECx-0001yf-1I for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:59 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56271) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TXECu-0001yY-EF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:57 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXECd-0008Qs-I2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:42 -0500 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:50237) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXECd-0008Qm-Es for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:39 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35350) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXECa-0005jb-CT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:39 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXECX-0008Pz-9w for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:36 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:28947) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXECX-0008Po-2u for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:46:33 -0500 Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qAAGkVFx007507 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:46:32 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 qAAGkUsS020504 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:46:31 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 qAAGkUvG009410 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:46:30 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/71.202.147.44) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:46:30 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: Subject: 24.2.50; doc of `color-defined-p' Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:46:24 -0800 Message-ID: <10495ABA26F14041A1E374AC3B820F6E@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: Ac2/YuuxI1yih7lXSreq2CWOuEFaSA== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -3.4 (---) 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: -4.2 (----) The doc string is missing the most basic information: What data type parameter COLOR is. It should say that COLOR must be a string or the symbol `unspecified' (an error is raised otherwise). It should say that the string can be any string, and that the function returns non-nil for #1 or #2, and nil otherwise: 1. a defined (recognized) color name 2. a color RGB code, with prefix `#' The doc should not say anything about the particular strings "unspecified-fg" or "unspecified-bg": there is nothing special about them. The function returns nil for ANY string other than #1 or #2. Consider adding to the doc string the "Note..." that is in the Elisp manual and that refers to `color-supported-p'. For the Elisp manual doc of `color-defined-p': change "X" to "X Window". If the same bug occurs elsewhere in the manual, please fix those occurrences too. In GNU Emacs 24.2.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600) of 2012-10-22 on DANI-PC Bzr revision: 110618 monnier@iro.umontreal.ca-20121022132928-232zm0fecassmhfb Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600 Configured using: `configure --with-gcc (4.7) --no-opt --enable-checking --cflags -I../../libs/libxpm-3.5.8/include -I../../libs/libxpm-3.5.8/src -I../../libs/libpng-1.4.10 -I../../libs/zlib-1.2.6 -I../../libs/giflib-4.1.4-1/include -I../../libs/jpeg-6b-4/include -I../../libs/tiff-3.8.2-1/include -I../../libs/libxml2-2.7.8-w32-bin/include/libxml2 -I../../libs/gnutls-3.0.16/include -I../../libs/libiconv-1.14-2-mingw32-dev/include' ------------=_1353657542-17576-1--