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: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: bug#22314: closed (Re: bug#22314: 25.1.50; Document variable
 `deactivate-mark' in Elisp manual)
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 06:50:02 +0000

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

Your bug report

#22314: 25.1.50; Document variable `deactivate-mark' in Elisp manual

which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 22314 <at> debbugs.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: 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.

[Message part 3 (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''

Previous Next

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