GNU bug report logs - #22314
25.1.50; Document variable `deactivate-mark' in Elisp manual

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#22314: closed (25.1.50; Document variable `deactivate-mark'
 in Elisp manual)
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 06:50:01 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Sat, 09 Jan 2016 08:49:05 +0200
with message-id <83wprjnt7i.fsf <at> gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#22314: 25.1.50; Document variable `deactivate-mark' in Elisp manual
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #22314,
regarding 25.1.50; Document variable `deactivate-mark' in Elisp manual
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
22314: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=22314
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 25.1.50; Document variable `deactivate-mark' in Elisp manual
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:10:00 -0800 (PST)

Subject line says it all.  Only the function of the same name is
documented.

In GNU Emacs 25.1.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
 of 2015-12-10
Repository revision: 6148555ee5a3d0139ae517803718b3e0357933c7
Windowing system distributor 'Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 'configure --prefix=/c/Devel/emacs/snapshot/trunk --enable-checking=yes
 --enable-check-lisp-object-type --without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-Og
 -ggdb3' LDFLAGS=-Lc:/Devel/emacs/lib 'CPPFLAGS=-DGC_MCHECK=1
 -Ic:/Devel/emacs/include''

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 22314-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22314: 25.1.50; Document variable `deactivate-mark' in Elisp
 manual
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 08:49:05 +0200

> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:29:42 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> Cc: 22314 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > I see the same, but I don't understand why that is a problem.  The
> > function and the variable are described one after the other, and 'i'
> > puts you on the first of them with the second clearly visible below.
> > How is that a problem?  And how is it worse than having 2 identical
> > index entries instead, which point each one to a place several lines
> > apart?
> 
> It's wrong because it does not move point to the entry.  Nothing
> indicates to a user that there in fact 3 entries, not 2.

The user's eyes should indicate that.  You are splitting hair.

> I would not have filed this bug report if I thought that this
> was not a problem.  And as you can see from my initial report,
> I in fact mistakenly thought that the variable was not even
> documented, because cycling among the index entries did not
> take me to it.

You should have read a bit more than a single line.

> I don't see why you wouldn't want to add an index entry for this
> variable.  But if you don't feel like it then what can I say?

THERE IS ALREADY AN INDEX ENTRY FOR IT!!!!

How many times do I need to tell you that?  Just look at the sources!

> If the Elisp manual had different indexes, as does the Emacs
> manual, then adding it would also let a user find it in the
> Variables Index.

The function is indexed as a function, the variable is indexed as a
variable.  We have @defvar for the variable, which indexes the
variable, and a @defun for the function, which indexes the function.

> Maybe it's not possible to index both, if there is only one
> Index?  Dunno.  If you can't, you can't.  If you can (maybe two
> entries, with suffixes "(variable)" and "(function)"), that's
> better, IMO.

Bug closed.

Previous Next

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