Subject: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info

From: Clément Pit--Claudel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 13:50:23 -0400

On 2016-09-02 19:59, Drew Adams wrote:
> Anyone getting super serious about the function, and interested
> beyond the doc string, will look at the code, and will conclude
> that the signature in the doc string must by a typo (erroneous).
> And erroneous it is.

I don't think so. Looking at the code, I see:

  (declare
   (advertised-calling-convention (regexp limit &optional greedy) "25.1"))

How would you conclude that this is a typo?!