GNU bug report logs -
#20702
25.0.50; (elisp) `ImageMagick Images': say how to tell if Emacs has IM support, etc.
Previous Next
Reported by: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 15:09:02 UTC
Severity: minor
Tags: fixed
Found in version 25.0.50
Fixed in version 26.1
Done: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 20702 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 20702 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#20702
; Package
emacs
.
(Sun, 31 May 2015 15:09:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
.
(Sun, 31 May 2015 15:09:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Someone using the Elisp manual might not have built the Emacs build
being used. S?he might not even know what build a user might use.
This node should tell an Emacs-Lisp programmer how, using Lisp, to tell
whether the current build has ImageMagick support.
IOW, the opening phrase of this node, "If you build Emacs with
ImageMagick support" should be replaced by "If an Emacs build has
ImageMagick support", and this intro should be followed by telling users
how to check this using Lisp.
My guess (from trying) would be that (fboundp 'imagemagick-types) is the
test that tells you this - in my build it returns nil.
In any case, the doc should also say explicitly that this function is
not defined if the Emacs build has no ImageMagick support. In
particular, the way `imagemagick-types' is described now, one could
reasonably (and mistakenly) expect that in an Emacs build that has no
ImageMagick support `imagemagick-types' would be defined but would
return () - no ImageMagick image types are supported. (And why isn't
this the case?)
In sum, the intro to this node needs to be written for Elisp programmers
in general.
In GNU Emacs 25.0.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
of 2014-10-20 on LEG570
Bzr revision: 118168 rgm <at> gnu.org-20141020195941-icp42t8ttcnud09g
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
`configure --enable-checking=yes,glyphs CPPFLAGS=-DGLYPH_DEBUG=1'
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#20702
; Package
emacs
.
(Sun, 31 May 2015 16:26:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 20702 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 08:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
>
> My guess (from trying) would be that (fboundp 'imagemagick-types) is the
> test that tells you this - in my build it returns nil.
Actually,
M-: (image-type-available-p 'imagemagick) RET
and
C-h v system-configuration-features RET
are better ways of getting at that information. The latter should IMO
be documented in both manuals.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#20702
; Package
emacs
.
(Sun, 31 May 2015 18:07:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 20702 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> > My guess (from trying) would be that (fboundp 'imagemagick-types)
> > is the test that tells you this - in my build it returns nil.
>
> Actually, M-: (image-type-available-p 'imagemagick) RET and C-h v
> system-configuration-features RET are better ways of getting at that
> information. The latter should IMO be documented in both manuals.
Very good. I agree.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#20702
; Package
emacs
.
(Sun, 31 May 2015 18:07:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 20702 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> C-h v system-configuration-features RET
>
> are better ways of getting at that information. The latter should IMO
> be documented in both manuals.
As NEWS says, s-c-f is mainly (entirely) intended for Emacs bug reports.
I don't think that checking for elements in there is the right way to
see if Emacs supports a given feature. That's why it is intentionally
not mentioned in the manuals.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#20702
; Package
emacs
.
(Sun, 31 May 2015 18:36:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #17 received at 20702 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
> Cc: 20702 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 14:06:50 -0400
>
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> > C-h v system-configuration-features RET
> >
> > are better ways of getting at that information. The latter should IMO
> > be documented in both manuals.
>
> As NEWS says, s-c-f is mainly (entirely) intended for Emacs bug reports.
> I don't think that checking for elements in there is the right way to
> see if Emacs supports a given feature. That's why it is intentionally
> not mentioned in the manuals.
I cannot see any sense in this decision. The value of the variable is
very clear to a human reader, so I don't understand why we should hold
it secret.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#20702
; Package
emacs
.
(Sun, 31 May 2015 18:52:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #20 received at 20702 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 21:35:36 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> Cc: 20702 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
> > Cc: 20702 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> > Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 14:06:50 -0400
> >
> > I don't think that checking for elements in there is the right way to
> > see if Emacs supports a given feature. That's why it is intentionally
> > not mentioned in the manuals.
>
> I cannot see any sense in this decision. The value of the variable is
> very clear to a human reader, so I don't understand why we should hold
> it secret.
Maybe you meant the value should not be examined by Lisp programs. In
which case I might agree: I was talking about humans examining the
value, not programs.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#20702
; Package
emacs
.
(Sun, 31 May 2015 23:40:04 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #23 received at 20702 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Maybe you meant the value should not be examined by Lisp programs. In
> which case I might agree: I was talking about humans examining the
> value, not programs.
Yeah, I meant Lisp programs.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#20702
; Package
emacs
.
(Sat, 30 Apr 2016 19:40:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #26 received at 20702 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:
> IOW, the opening phrase of this node, "If you build Emacs with
> ImageMagick support" should be replaced by "If an Emacs build has
> ImageMagick support", and this intro should be followed by telling users
> how to check this using Lisp.
I've now pushed a fix.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
Added tag(s) fixed.
Request was from
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sat, 30 Apr 2016 19:40:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug marked as fixed in version 25.2, send any further explanations to
20702 <at> debbugs.gnu.org and Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Request was from
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sat, 30 Apr 2016 19:40:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sun, 29 May 2016 11:24:04 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug unarchived.
Request was from
Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sun, 04 Dec 2016 02:50:07 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug Marked as fixed in versions 26.1.
Request was from
Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sun, 04 Dec 2016 02:50:07 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug No longer marked as fixed in versions 25.2.
Request was from
Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sun, 04 Dec 2016 02:50:07 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sun, 01 Jan 2017 12:24:04 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 8 years and 175 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.