GNU bug report logs - #20411
24.3; Docstring of `next-single-property-change'

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 20411 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 20411 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Barzilay <eli <at> barzilay.org>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 24.3; Docstring of `next-single-property-change'
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:08:01 -0400

The documentation for `next-single-property-change' has:

  Return nil if the property is constant all the way to the end of
  object.  If the value is non-nil, it is a position greater than
  position, never equal.

Both of these are wrong when a bound is given.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

Message #8 received at 20411 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Barzilay <eli <at> barzilay.org>
Cc: 20411 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#20411: 24.3; Docstring of `next-single-property-change'
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:31:58 +0300

> From: Eli Barzilay <eli <at> barzilay.org>
> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:08:01 -0400
> 
> The documentation for `next-single-property-change' has:
> 
>   Return nil if the property is constant all the way to the end of
>   object.  If the value is non-nil, it is a position greater than
>   position, never equal.
> 
> Both of these are wrong when a bound is given.

Which is why the doc string says, right after the text you cited:

  If the optional fourth argument LIMIT is non-nil, don't search
  past position LIMIT; return LIMIT if nothing is found before LIMIT.

Isn't this exactly what you were looking for?

Message #11 received at 20411 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Barzilay <eli <at> barzilay.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 20411 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#20411: 24.3; Docstring of `next-single-property-change'
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:29:55 -0400

Bah.  Yes, I completely missed that.  Looking at it again, I think that
it's that "never equal" that threw me off and write code that assumes
that.  To make it worse, it reads like an interface very similar to
`re-search-forward' up to that paragraph, and that "helped" me miss the
last sentence.

So I still think that it's confusing -- maybe "except when LIMIT is
non-nil" and possibly a warning that this is different from the
searching functions?

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Eli Barzilay <eli <at> barzilay.org>
>> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:08:01 -0400
>>
>> The documentation for `next-single-property-change' has:
>>
>>   Return nil if the property is constant all the way to the end of
>>   object.  If the value is non-nil, it is a position greater than
>>   position, never equal.
>>
>> Both of these are wrong when a bound is given.
>
> Which is why the doc string says, right after the text you cited:
>
>   If the optional fourth argument LIMIT is non-nil, don't search
>   past position LIMIT; return LIMIT if nothing is found before LIMIT.
>
> Isn't this exactly what you were looking for?



-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

Message #16 received at 20411-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Barzilay <eli <at> barzilay.org>
Cc: 20411-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#20411: 24.3; Docstring of `next-single-property-change'
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:28:16 +0300

> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:29:55 -0400
> From: Eli Barzilay <eli <at> barzilay.org>
> Cc: 20411 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> So I still think that it's confusing -- maybe "except when LIMIT is
> non-nil" and possibly a warning that this is different from the
> searching functions?

Thanks, I clarified the doc strings of this and similar functions in
this respect.

Message #19 received at 20411-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Barzilay <eli <at> barzilay.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 20411-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#20411: 24.3; Docstring of `next-single-property-change'
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:32:25 -0400

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks, I clarified the doc strings of this and similar functions in
> this respect.

Thanks -- that looks more robust now.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

Previous Next

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