Subject: Re: 24.3.50; doc string of `execute-extended-command' is incorrect

From: "Aaron S. Hawley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 16:27:44 -0500

When I translated the C code to Lisp I tried to carry everything over,
including any "warts".  Clearly this was the case for the
documentation as well.  I enjoy how succinct the doc is though. Until
Emacs 21, the docstring was just "Read function name, then read its
arguments and call it."

1. Yes, the first line should say "command" and not "function".
Although since the word "command" is in execute-extended-command it
seems the intent was to avoid sounding repetitive.
2. True, the definition for execute-extended-command doesn't contain
code for reading arguments.  That's because the work is off-loaded to
command-execute and in turn call-interactively.  So for all intents
and purposes that's what execute-extended-command does.  Sometimes
it's the case that "the command so named reads its own arguments", but
that's only true when the command has an interactive Lisp form --
which gets eval'd by call-interactively.  Otherwise, interactive specs
of the string-variety are really handled by call-interactively.  I'd
file this as a distinction without a difference or at least as
implementation details that are hopefully already covered
appropriately in the Elisp manual.
3. The usage in the Emacs manual is "numeric argument", so for better
or worse, it seems consistent.
4. Is a white space nit pick.  As Yoda might have said, "A horse in
the race I have not."
5. Yeah, best to delete "with" from "you are invoking with".  This is
actually worth fixing.
6. Yeah, "accepts an argument" is probably more correct language than
"asks for an argument".  This is actually worth fixing as well.

Looking forward to the release of the Lisp version of M-x!
/a

-- 
In general, we reserve the right to have a poor
memory--the computer, however, is supposed to
remember!  Poor computer.  -- Guy Lewis Steele Jr.