GNU bug report logs - #14734
24.3.50; REGRESSION: defadvice broken wrt doc strings (C-h f)

Previous Next

Full log

Message #26 received at 14734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
Cc: 14734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: RE: bug#14734: 24.3.50; REGRESSION: defadvice broken wrt doc strings
 (C-h f)
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:56:55 -0700 (PDT)

> > The change introduced is horrible for users.  Now they see only
> > the original doc string, plus a link that will be incomprehensible
> > to many (so skipped over by them):
> 
> You're overdramatizing. It's less convenient, but far from "horrible".
> 
> > Not only can Emacs do better, it always HAS.  This is a real step
> > backward for users.  Intentional or not.  I'm reopening the bug.
> > I hope you will seriously consider reverting the misguided changes
> > that introduced this regression.
> 
> It's obviously the result of advice.el being re-implemented using
> nadvice.el, for backward compatibility. Having a minor regression in
> functionality in this kind of situation is fairly normal.

If your point of view is only that of an implementor, you see only
"less convenient", "minor regression", and "fairly normal".  You see
the regression as just "a result of ... being reimplemented", as if
design and the user experience do not matter.  Implementation leads.

If your point of view is that of a user, the result is a real step
backward and, yes, pretty horrible.  The design should lead, for users.

One opinion, of course.

And just why did something already implemented (and stable for years)
need to be REimplemented "for backward compatibility"?  Why did adding
something new and different and presumably better require ALSO
reimplementing something that was already, by definition, backward
compatible?

Previous Next

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