GNU bug report logs - #13949
24.3.50; `fill-paragraph' should not always put the buffer as modified

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Jaakov <j_k_v <at> ro.ru>
Cc: 13949 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#13949: (no subject)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:07:33 +0200

> Cc: 13949 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Jaakov <j_k_v <at> ro.ru>
> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:53:24 +0100
> 
> >> I think you just didn't get my point.
> >
> > I'm getting your point, believe me.
> >
> >> Am I being unclear on the principal difference between
> >> (1) _what_ a routine should do and
> >> (2) _how_ it should do it?
> >> ?
> >
> > I understand you, I just don't agree.
> 
> Your argument for not agreeing was:
> 
> "the buffer text is changed (at least twice), which turns on the 
> modified flag."
> 
> If you do understand me, please observe that from the viewpoint of (1) 
> in the described examples the buffer text is NOT changed, neither once, 
> nor twice, not at all.
> (Some properties may change, but not the buffer text. Also, the user has 
> no practical way to look at the intermediate computation.)
> 
> Reason:
> 
> In our case, in the view of (1) the term "buffer text is changed" is 
> defined, somewhat diffusely, as not "the same contents as the 
> corresponding file on the disk".
> 
> Source:
> "The text displayed in the mode line has the following format:
> cs:ch-fr  buf      pos line   (major minor)
> ...
> The next element on the mode line is the string indicated by ch. This 
> shows two dashes (‘--’) if the buffer displayed in the window has the 
> same contents as the corresponding file on the disk; i.e., if the buffer 
> is “unmodified”. If the buffer is modified, it shows two stars (‘**’)."
> from
> https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Mode-Line.html#Mode-Line
> 
> Therefore, the first part of your argument is invalid.
> 
> Am I being clear?

Yes.

But you are entirely missing the point.  I'm not saying anything about
the subject of this report, except this: it's an enhancement request.
Why?  Because (a) the code does exactly what it was designed to do,
not something different; and (b) the effect of what the code does in
this case is not a serious problem, like a crash or inability to do
something important, it is just a minor annoyance.

Therefore, the triage of the bug report as an enhancement request
(a.k.a. "wishlist") is correct.

Please note that I said nothing at all about whether the code should
do something else, or whether the documentation should be corrected to
use a different definition of what the "**" indication means.  This
would be a different argument, and I might even agree with you there.
I'm only talking about the severity value, nothing else.

OK?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.