From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Dec 20 18:07:13 2014 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Dec 2014 23:07:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53332 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2T7B-0007P4-6g for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:07:13 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42024) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2T78-0007Ow-VI for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:07:11 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2T6y-0007cj-Cn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:07:10 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:46684) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2T6y-0007cf-A0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:07:00 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43717) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2T6p-0002j5-F4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:07:00 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2T6g-0007Wp-OA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:06:51 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:31832) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2T6g-0007Wb-Fm for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:06:42 -0500 Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id sBKN6eoX019142 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:06:41 GMT Received: from userz7021.oracle.com (userz7021.oracle.com [156.151.31.85]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sBKN6dDr028773 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:06:40 GMT Received: from abhmp0011.oracle.com (abhmp0011.oracle.com [141.146.116.17]) by userz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sBKN6dbi012684 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:06:39 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:06:40 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 25.0.50; doc string of `browse-url' must describe parameter ARGS X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8.2 (807160) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] 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: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) Subject line says it all. Please respect the GNU Emacs convention of specifying each of the parameters in the doc string. In this case, the doc for ARGS should mention option `browse-url-new-window= -flag', among other things. In GNU Emacs 25.0.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32) of 2014-10-20 on LEG570 Bzr revision: 118168 rgm@gnu.org-20141020195941-icp42t8ttcnud09g Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601 Configured using: `configure --enable-checking=3Dyes,glyphs CPPFLAGS=3D-DGLYPH_DEBUG=3D1' From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Dec 20 18:49:46 2014 Received: (at 19421) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Dec 2014 23:49:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53337 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2TmL-0008Rb-Jr for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:49:45 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:25884) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2TmI-0008RR-4J for 19421@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 18:49:42 -0500 Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id sBKNneiS014745 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <19421@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:49:41 GMT Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sBKNndVr024220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <19421@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:49:40 GMT Received: from abhmp0011.oracle.com (abhmp0011.oracle.com [141.146.116.17]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sBKNndwp024216 for <19421@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:49:39 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:49:40 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: 19421@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: RE: bug#19421: 25.0.50; doc string of `browse-url' must describe parameter ARGS References: In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8.2 (807160) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 19421 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) Same thing for the other functions in browse-url.el that have an ARGS &rest= parameter - e.g., `browse-url-default-browser'. Function doc strings need to specify the function's calling sequence, descr= ibing each of its parameters. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Dec 25 14:03:19 2015 Received: (at 19421) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Dec 2015 19:03:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35328 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aCXe3-0003s9-7M for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 14:03:19 -0500 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:41139) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aCXe1-0003ru-QK for 19421@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 14:03:18 -0500 Received: from 2.150.58.24.tmi.telenormobil.no ([2.150.58.24] helo=mouse) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1aCXdg-0002vl-4k; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 20:02:56 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#19421: 25.0.50; doc string of `browse-url' must describe parameter ARGS References: Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 20:02:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:06:40 -0800 (PST)") Message-ID: <87mvsywduo.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-MailScanner-ID: 1aCXdg-0002vl-4k X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1451674976.5347@2rjSIEV7TDwjM6TOQGsDaQ X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 19421 Cc: 19421@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) Drew Adams writes: > Subject line says it all. Please respect the GNU Emacs convention of > specifying each of the parameters in the doc string. The doc string says "Passes any ARGS to the browser function." -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Dec 25 14:03:25 2015 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Dec 2015 19:03:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35331 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aCXe9-0003sT-EB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 14:03:25 -0500 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:41145) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aCXe7-0003sL-DX for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 14:03:23 -0500 Received: from 2.150.58.24.tmi.telenormobil.no ([2.150.58.24] helo=mouse) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1aCXdm-0002vy-Jv for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 20:03:02 +0100 Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 20:03:01 +0100 Message-Id: <87lh8iwdui.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #19421 X-MailScanner-ID: 1aCXdm-0002vy-Jv X-Netfonds-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Netfonds-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org MailScanner-NULL-Check: 1451674983.04123@uXgZ07Qi+Avux4CB8IIOMw X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) close 19421 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Dec 25 18:07:13 2015 Received: (at 19421) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Dec 2015 23:07:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35940 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aCbS5-0004tg-IW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 18:07:13 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:41549) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aCbS3-0004tU-Nu for 19421@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 18:07:12 -0500 Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id tBPN741e010587 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 25 Dec 2015 23:07:05 GMT Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBPN74dB003766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 25 Dec 2015 23:07:04 GMT Received: from abhmp0002.oracle.com (abhmp0002.oracle.com [141.146.116.8]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBPN74LA028191; Fri, 25 Dec 2015 23:07:04 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <8db0a3c8-08b4-40c3-93a8-23ec9fcd8174@default> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 15:07:06 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: RE: bug#19421: 25.0.50; doc string of `browse-url' must describe parameter ARGS References: <87mvsywduo.fsf@gnus.org> In-Reply-To: <87mvsywduo.fsf@gnus.org> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 19421 Cc: 19421@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > > Please respect the GNU Emacs convention of > > specifying each of the parameters in the doc string. > > In this case, the doc for ARGS should mention option > > `browse-url-new-window-flag', among other things. >=20 > The doc string says > "Passes any ARGS to the browser function." Yes, and that IS the bug. The doc string does not specify parameter ARGS properly, helpfully, usefully. And there is this part of the same bug report, also ignored: > Same thing for the other functions in browse-url.el that have > an ARGS &rest parameter - e.g., `browse-url-default-browser'. This bug has not been fixed - but you know that. Why not fix it? Why do you not respect the GNU Emacs conventions and its high standards of self-documentation? What possible good reason do you have for not doing the right thing, here? As for `browse-url-default-browser', its doc string does not even have the lame excuse you used:=20 > The doc string says "Passes any ARGS to the browser function." It says nothing at all about ARGS. And it has even more problems. At least in the latest Emacs 25 snapshot I have, which dates from 2015-12-04: * This is the parameters lambda list: (URL &rest ARGS). * This is how the parameters are described in the doc string: "When called non-interactively, optional second argument NEW-WINDOW is used instead of 'browse-url-new-window-flag'." That's it! Nothing about parameter URL. Nothing about &rest-parameter ARGS (the subject of this bug report). And yet something about an "optional second argument NEW-WINDOW", which is not even present in the lambda list. Worse yet: It says "When called non-interactively", suggesting that the function could be called interactively. But it cannot - it is not a command. This is a mess, even if it is a trivial mess to fix. It is a shame to deliberately ignore such a simple, and obvious bug. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Dec 26 04:11:16 2015 Received: (at 19421) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Dec 2015 09:11:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36737 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aCkse-0001Ay-KG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 04:11:16 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34528) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aCksd-0001Al-4b for 19421@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 04:11:15 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aCksU-0005t1-GZ for 19421@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 04:11:09 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:45132) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aCksU-0005sx-Cg; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 04:11:06 -0500 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1046 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aCksT-0005Fh-Lk; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 04:11:06 -0500 Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:11:51 +0200 Message-Id: <83bn9dk208.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Drew Adams In-reply-to: <8db0a3c8-08b4-40c3-93a8-23ec9fcd8174@default> (message from Drew Adams on Fri, 25 Dec 2015 15:07:06 -0800 (PST)) Subject: Re: bug#19421: 25.0.50; doc string of `browse-url' must describe parameter ARGS References: <87mvsywduo.fsf@gnus.org> <8db0a3c8-08b4-40c3-93a8-23ec9fcd8174@default> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 19421 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 19421@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) > Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 15:07:06 -0800 (PST) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: 19421@debbugs.gnu.org > > > > Please respect the GNU Emacs convention of > > > specifying each of the parameters in the doc string. > > > In this case, the doc for ARGS should mention option > > > `browse-url-new-window-flag', among other things. > > > > The doc string says > > "Passes any ARGS to the browser function." > > Yes, and that IS the bug. The doc string does not specify > parameter ARGS properly, helpfully, usefully. > > And there is this part of the same bug report, also ignored: > > > Same thing for the other functions in browse-url.el that have > > an ARGS &rest parameter - e.g., `browse-url-default-browser'. What would you like us to say about ARGS? If you looked at the functions that can be invoked by browse-url, you know that they either ignore ARGS or (in a few cases) use ARGS to pass the NEW-WINDOW flag, in which case the corresponding function documents that. So this ARGS thingy is really for custom-written browser functions, in which case whoever writes them should know what ARGS are for, and should document that in the doc string of the function she writes. > This bug has not been fixed - but you know that. > > Why not fix it? Why do you not respect the GNU Emacs conventions > and its high standards of self-documentation? What possible good > reason do you have for not doing the right thing, here? Do you want us to say that ARGS are ignored? Is that what would in your opinion fix this bug? > As for `browse-url-default-browser', its doc string does not > even have the lame excuse you used: > > > The doc string says "Passes any ARGS to the browser function." > > It says nothing at all about ARGS. Because it is just a dispatcher -- it invokes other functions, which mostly ignore ARGS altogether. > At least in the latest Emacs 25 snapshot I have, which dates from > 2015-12-04: > > * This is the parameters lambda list: (URL &rest ARGS). > > * This is how the parameters are described in the doc string: > > "When called non-interactively, optional second argument > NEW-WINDOW is used instead of 'browse-url-new-window-flag'." > > That's it! Nothing about parameter URL. I don't think URL should need any explanations in a package that deals with browsing URLs. So this part is a red herring, IMO. > This is a mess, even if it is a trivial mess to fix. It is a > shame to deliberately ignore such a simple, and obvious bug. You should watch your language if you want your comments to be taken seriously. If every minor issue is "a mess" and "a shame", then what words can you use for real problems? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Dec 26 11:40:44 2015 Received: (at 19421) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Dec 2015 16:40:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41837 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aCrtc-00079D-G3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:40:44 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:21081) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aCrta-000790-GN for 19421@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:40:43 -0500 Received: from userv0022.oracle.com (userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id tBQGeavC028104 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:40:36 GMT Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userv0022.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBQGeah0012831 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:40:36 GMT Received: from abhmp0002.oracle.com (abhmp0002.oracle.com [141.146.116.8]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBQGeaTC029721; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 16:40:36 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <41cee0e8-d5b7-4b6d-8f5b-314c01142f3a@default> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:40:36 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams Subject: RE: bug#19421: 25.0.50; doc string of `browse-url' must describe parameter ARGS References: < <87mvsywduo.fsf@gnus.org>> <<8db0a3c8-08b4-40c3-93a8-23ec9fcd8174@default>> <<83bn9dk208.fsf@gnu.org>> In-Reply-To: <<83bn9dk208.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 19421 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 19421@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > What would you like us to say about ARGS? Say what it is for? Name and describe its structure or its parts, if any of them (NEW-WINDOW?) are significant? I don't know the functions, so I can't really say what might be appropriate to say about ARGS, here. > If you looked at the > functions that can be invoked by browse-url, you know that they either > ignore ARGS or (in a few cases) use ARGS to pass the NEW-WINDOW flag, > in which case the corresponding function documents that. If a given function that has an ARGS &rest parameter does nothing else with ARGS except pass it on to some other function, it is enough for the doc of the first function to say that - as usual. Certainly the function's doc should say nothing about "NEW-WINDOW" unless either NEW-WINDOW is in the parameter list or the doc describes it in terms of parameters that are in the list (e.g., as one of the members of argument-list ARGS). The mention of NEW-WINDOW comes out of the blue and is incomprehensible to a user reading the doc string (this user, at least). > So this ARGS thingy is really for custom-written browser functions, in > which case whoever writes them should know what ARGS are for, and > should document that in the doc string of the function she writes. I have no complaints about imaginary doc strings of possible user-written functions. The bug report is about doc strings of predefined Emacs functions that have ARGS as &rest parameter. > > Why not fix it? Why do you not respect the GNU Emacs conventions > > and its high standards of self-documentation? What possible good > > reason do you have for not doing the right thing, here? >=20 > Do you want us to say that ARGS are ignored? Is that what would in > your opinion fix this bug? I don't know the behavior, so I won't pretend to prescribe what the doc should say. IF the ARGS are always completely ignored by a function that accepts &rest ARGS as arguments, then that is not a doc problem - the function should not accept arguments if it in fact always ignores them. But if it passes the ARGS on to some other function (for example) then that's what the doc string should say. That is not ignoring the arguments. And in that case it need say nothing more than that: "ARGS are passed to function ____" or "ARGS are passed to the function that is the value of variable ____" or similar. This is the usual treatment, no? I don't think I'm inventing anything, here. > > As for `browse-url-default-browser', its doc string does not > > even have the lame excuse you used: > > > The doc string says "Passes any ARGS to the browser function." > > It says nothing at all about ARGS. >=20 > Because it is just a dispatcher -- it invokes other functions, > which mostly ignore ARGS altogether. Then that's what its doc should say: it passes ARGS to other functions (and name or otherwise specify what those functions are or can be). And whether or not those other functions ignore ARGS is irrelevant to _this_ doc string for _this_ function. > > At least in the latest Emacs 25 snapshot I have, which dates from > > 2015-12-04: > > > > * This is the parameters lambda list: (URL &rest ARGS). > > * This is how the parameters are described in the doc string: > > "When called non-interactively, optional second argument > > NEW-WINDOW is used instead of 'browse-url-new-window-flag'." > > > > That's it! Nothing about parameter URL. >=20 > I don't think URL should need any explanations in a package that > deals with browsing URLs. So this part is a red herring, IMO. It need not say that parameter URL is a url, granted. But it might want to say something about it being a string, or about it being passed to ____, or something else - I don't know. If you think there is nothing at all to say about URL, I'm OK with that. Frankly, I'm comfortable with you, Eli, just taking a look at the bug report. I'm not very happy with it having been summarily closed without any consideration. I'm not really keen to jump back in on this and argue about it - I really don't care that much. I would hope that someone would either take a considered look at it and DTRT or that it would simply remain open until someone does that. That's the proper respect to show to bug reports and to the users who took the time to report them - even when the reports might be mistaken or foolish. Users who report bugs are trying to improve Emacs. They are not trying to make life miserable for the volunteers who maintain Emacs and who are also, like the users who report bugs, trying to improve Emacs. If you don't have the time to consider a report carefully, then please leave it open for now. Closing bug reports summarily, just to get the numbers down (?), is the kind of misguided thing seen sometimes in non-free software circles. Back to the report... You dropped this: > And yet something about an "optional second argument > NEW-WINDOW", which is not even present in the lambda list. What about that? No doc bug? And this: > Worse yet: It says "When called non-interactively", > suggesting that the function could be called interactively. > But it cannot - it is not a command. No acknowledgment that I might have a point and there are indeed some problems with this doc string, there at least. Instead, a sermon that if I want help then I should not say that this doc string is a "mess" and it is a "shame" to summarily close such bugs instead of at least acknowledging them or (better) making a minimal attempt to improve the doc. It's perfectly understandable that such a bug is not regarded as high-priority. But if you recognize it as a bug then why close it? And if you do _not_ recognize that a doc string that talks about NEW-WINDOW and calls the function a command, when NEW-WINDOW is undefined wrt the parameter list and the function is not interactive, then I disagree - it is a bug. However insignificant one might think such a doc bug is, at least one user (and I hardly use browse-url) thinks it is important enough to report. Whether you want to spend time looking into it or fixing it is another question - I make no argument that this bug is very important. But why close it, if it is a bug? You have not heard me complaining that this bug has not been fixed. My complaint is about it being closed summarily. That's all. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Dec 26 13:53:12 2015 Received: (at 19421) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Dec 2015 18:53:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42104 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aCtxk-0001y9-Mx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:53:12 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53687) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aCtxg-0001xW-AQ for 19421@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:53:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aCtxX-0002SR-9M for 19421@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:52:58 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55190) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aCtxX-0002SN-62; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:52:55 -0500 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1654 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aCtxW-00057X-Ds; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:52:54 -0500 Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 20:53:39 +0200 Message-Id: <8337uphwi4.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Drew Adams In-reply-to: <41cee0e8-d5b7-4b6d-8f5b-314c01142f3a@default> (message from Drew Adams on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:40:36 -0800 (PST)) Subject: Re: bug#19421: 25.0.50; doc string of `browse-url' must describe parameter ARGS References: < <87mvsywduo.fsf@gnus.org>> <<8db0a3c8-08b4-40c3-93a8-23ec9fcd8174@default>> <<83bn9dk208.fsf@gnu.org>> <41cee0e8-d5b7-4b6d-8f5b-314c01142f3a@default> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 19421 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 19421@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) > Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:40:36 -0800 (PST) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 19421@debbugs.gnu.org > > > If you looked at the > > functions that can be invoked by browse-url, you know that they either > > ignore ARGS or (in a few cases) use ARGS to pass the NEW-WINDOW flag, > > in which case the corresponding function documents that. > > If a given function that has an ARGS &rest parameter does nothing > else with ARGS except pass it on to some other function, it is > enough for the doc of the first function to say that - as usual. I have now done that. > Certainly the function's doc should say nothing about "NEW-WINDOW" > unless either NEW-WINDOW is in the parameter list or the doc > describes it in terms of parameters that are in the list (e.g., > as one of the members of argument-list ARGS). The mention of > NEW-WINDOW comes out of the blue and is incomprehensible to a > user reading the doc string (this user, at least). Fixed. > > > As for `browse-url-default-browser', its doc string does not > > > even have the lame excuse you used: > > > > The doc string says "Passes any ARGS to the browser function." > > > It says nothing at all about ARGS. > > > > Because it is just a dispatcher -- it invokes other functions, > > which mostly ignore ARGS altogether. > > Then that's what its doc should say: it passes ARGS to other > functions (and name or otherwise specify what those functions > are or can be). And whether or not those other functions ignore > ARGS is irrelevant to _this_ doc string for _this_ function. Done. > Back to the report... You dropped this: > > > And yet something about an "optional second argument > > NEW-WINDOW", which is not even present in the lambda list. > > What about that? No doc bug? Fixed. > And this: > > > Worse yet: It says "When called non-interactively", > > suggesting that the function could be called interactively. > > But it cannot - it is not a command. > > No acknowledgment that I might have a point and there are > indeed some problems with this doc string, there at least. The previous paragraph of the doc string describes the interactive behavior: When called interactively, if variable `browse-url-new-window-flag' is non-nil, load the document in a new window, if possible, otherwise use a random existing one. A non-nil interactive prefix argument reverses the effect of `browse-url-new-window-flag'. So this part was already okay (in other functions as well). From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Dec 26 17:19:15 2015 Received: (at 19421) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Dec 2015 22:19:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42256 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aCxBC-000598-Th for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:19:15 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:16388) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aCxBB-00058w-TC for 19421@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:19:14 -0500 Received: from userv0022.oracle.com (userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id tBQMJ5pj026091 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:19:06 GMT Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by userv0022.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBQMJ5hE030033 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:19:05 GMT Received: from abhmp0010.oracle.com (abhmp0010.oracle.com [141.146.116.16]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBQMJ5ca028372; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:19:05 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <10972dc0-33fa-4ff0-974e-96156500da7f@default> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:19:05 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams Subject: RE: bug#19421: 25.0.50; doc string of `browse-url' must describe parameter ARGS References: << <87mvsywduo.fsf@gnus.org>>> <<<8db0a3c8-08b4-40c3-93a8-23ec9fcd8174@default>>> <<<83bn9dk208.fsf@gnu.org>>> <<41cee0e8-d5b7-4b6d-8f5b-314c01142f3a@default>> <<8337uphwi4.fsf@gnu.org>> In-Reply-To: <<8337uphwi4.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 19421 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 19421@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) > I have now done that. =20 > Fixed. =20 > Done. =20 > Fixed. Great. Thank you for all of those changes, sight unseen. > > And this: > > > > > Worse yet: It says "When called non-interactively", > > > suggesting that the function could be called interactively. > > > But it cannot - it is not a command. > > > The previous paragraph of the doc string describes the interactive > behavior: >=20 > When called interactively, if variable `browse-url-new-window-flag' is > non-nil, load the document in a new window, if possible, otherwise use > a random existing one. A non-nil interactive prefix argument reverses > the effect of `browse-url-new-window-flag'. >=20 > So this part was already okay (in other functions as well). Sorry; I do not understand. The doc string speaks about behavior for when it is called interactively and when it is called non-interactively. I fail to see how it is called interactively, since it is not a command - it has no `interactive' spec. Are you perhaps counting something like `M-: (browse-url-default-browser...)' as an interactive call? Normally that is not what the doc means by "interactive". Am I missing something? The doc string still seems wacko, to me. I admit that I have not studied all of the code in browse-url.el, but I shouldn't have to, just to grasp what a doc string is saying. This doc string talks about situations where the function is called interactively, which I do not see as a possibility. And it refers to an "optional second argument NEW-WINDOW", but the lambda list is (URL &rest ARGS), and the doc string in no way introduces NEW WINDOW in terms of those parameters. Sure, users can figure out that NEW-WINDOW, if present, must be the first element of list ARGS. But it would be a lot clearer if the doc string just talked about an optional second argument, and said directly what its effect is. I don't want to belabor this any more that we have already. If you really think this doc string is clear now, great. It's not so important that it be clear to me. Thanks for having taken a second look at it and having made the changes you made. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Dec 27 11:05:38 2015 Received: (at 19421) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Dec 2015 16:05:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44533 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aDDp9-0006gt-7F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:05:38 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:50453) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aDDp4-0006gP-AQ for 19421@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:05:33 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDDov-0006et-Bh for 19421@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:05:24 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42834) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aDDov-0006ep-8Y; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:05:21 -0500 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2270 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aDDou-0003Qm-IH; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:05:20 -0500 Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:06:08 +0200 Message-Id: <83h9j3ho5r.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Drew Adams In-reply-to: <10972dc0-33fa-4ff0-974e-96156500da7f@default> (message from Drew Adams on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:19:05 -0800 (PST)) Subject: Re: bug#19421: 25.0.50; doc string of `browse-url' must describe parameter ARGS References: << <87mvsywduo.fsf@gnus.org>>> <<<8db0a3c8-08b4-40c3-93a8-23ec9fcd8174@default>>> <<<83bn9dk208.fsf@gnu.org>>> <<41cee0e8-d5b7-4b6d-8f5b-314c01142f3a@default>> <<8337uphwi4.fsf@gnu.org>> <10972dc0-33fa-4ff0-974e-96156500da7f@default> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 19421 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 19421@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) > Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:19:05 -0800 (PST) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 19421@debbugs.gnu.org > > > When called interactively, if variable `browse-url-new-window-flag' is > > non-nil, load the document in a new window, if possible, otherwise use > > a random existing one. A non-nil interactive prefix argument reverses > > the effect of `browse-url-new-window-flag'. > > > > So this part was already okay (in other functions as well). > > Sorry; I do not understand. The doc string speaks about behavior > for when it is called interactively and when it is called > non-interactively. > > I fail to see how it is called interactively, since it is not a > command - it has no `interactive' spec. It describes what will happen with the functions it calls, depending on the platform. Those functions do have an interactive spec. > And it refers to an "optional second argument NEW-WINDOW", but > the lambda list is (URL &rest ARGS), and the doc string in no > way introduces NEW WINDOW in terms of those parameters. Please look at the current sources, you are talking about stuff I changed already. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Dec 27 11:55:29 2015 Received: (at 19421) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Dec 2015 16:55:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44605 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aDEbR-0007wj-2W for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:55:29 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:22738) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aDEbP-0007wU-KU for 19421@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:55:27 -0500 Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id tBRGtK4g022350 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:55:21 GMT Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBRGtJTC018290 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:55:20 GMT Received: from abhmp0007.oracle.com (abhmp0007.oracle.com [141.146.116.13]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBRGtJJ6024449; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:55:19 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <9b7eea53-ecf4-47f8-b153-9d80ac3557a0@default> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 08:55:18 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams Subject: RE: bug#19421: 25.0.50; doc string of `browse-url' must describe parameter ARGS References: <<< <87mvsywduo.fsf@gnus.org>>>> <<<<8db0a3c8-08b4-40c3-93a8-23ec9fcd8174@default>>>> <<<<83bn9dk208.fsf@gnu.org>>>> <<<41cee0e8-d5b7-4b6d-8f5b-314c01142f3a@default>>> <<<8337uphwi4.fsf@gnu.org>>> <<10972dc0-33fa-4ff0-974e-96156500da7f@default>> <<83h9j3ho5r.fsf@gnu.org>> In-Reply-To: <<83h9j3ho5r.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71] X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 19421 Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 19421@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) >> > I fail to see how it is called interactively, since it is not a > > command - it has no `interactive' spec. >=20 > It describes what will happen with the functions it calls, depending > on the platform. Those functions do have an interactive spec. That is something entirely different from "when called interactively". Such language is quite misleading. At least it misled and confused me. And is this doc string really the place to describe that? (I don't say that it is not, but certainly such info is secondary to describing this function and its own arguments.) > > And it refers to an "optional second argument NEW-WINDOW", but > > the lambda list is (URL &rest ARGS), and the doc string in no > > way introduces NEW WINDOW in terms of those parameters. >=20 > Please look at the current sources, you are talking about stuff I > changed already. OK great. Please ignore any such ignorance. I was referring to the state before your changes, which I have not seen. From unknown Tue Jun 17 22:27:39 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:24:03 +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