From unknown Wed Jun 18 23:13:55 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#24353 <24353@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#24353 <24353@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info Reply-To: bug#24353 <24353@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 06:13:55 +0000 retitle 24353 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info reassign 24353 emacs submitter 24353 Andreas R=C3=B6hler severity 24353 wishlist tag 24353 notabug wontfix thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 04:42:27 2016 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Sep 2016 08:42:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46957 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfk3P-0007iN-HR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:42:27 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36478) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfk3O-0007iB-EZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:42:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfk3I-0003Co-JK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:42:21 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:36351) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfk3I-0003CG-G1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:42:20 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55681) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfk3G-00074h-GJ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:42:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfk3B-0003BE-I4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:42:18 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.133]:49189) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfk3B-0003AA-7q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:42:13 -0400 Received: from [192.168.178.35] ([77.12.41.50]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LxGmY-1b0deS3OmI-016zhV for ; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 10:42:10 +0200 To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_R=c3=b6hler?= Subject: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:48:39 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:OkJR8f0JmMSulSJ2FGdbPhaqe9CXG8co0ROv30WgqU4aaskvuXA rUKSLmHes0ue7Scal1I+WEokN0VBb4OBFd4Mah8pzWo94r9yxOfP8vFV7xOkSUO3HhSfc8r 3egtc9GZC5dIXHJSzOJ8ECFQcP9/he8RNDuFdCSLfkD5uAzwfyZXQ8j1J9EfBeM6N/OWtK7 SGfCEqQnQxxfteqd3HFyg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:LNiGIthzqg4=:e2A1Zf+KA2twuh0AIGqOMr ckH2sOGQkgdn2rVvM/Oz8GKugYpmpa6qPIi/umvjJTcgJza5f1HvvkuDSvHz+I/jkQfvxU+4v z733eHsRWZynoQRPvRWl65UjUN0SvchcxwPlBqFqUFh9S4yHPInE3rQF+zQ658bwXPE8eKTtP WW3NS4vwfNIu2trbkMSTAsJnvfuOavbfQDU+wGtnUyqfwG8bj0D1z/lsp11AZ+mOROe0JJ7l7 tca3kphdeQ/WItQKucni+PaYZ4bnfH0tMKRtbsN3BbznJVQENXRS1X+mJ/q/DQ/EJ31RubCfj Ix/Cj6lblJQrFsD1kM/r6UXrJxLuxLvKXoMhVgIxSF7datE3bcDc2GMiZK32lwrMjvcQMLeFW fSn8duJj5A2llYqyf5UNOvwJ2NfPvWFDDGjwCb56JzF9AVuFqEcJz/CltUNtXQWF2hKYcCslm N9TcUqrXin37rvZUhvJnd2w+kNiXq6IhI+V43NU32cAWqRKqK8sf/WK4OqW9opLfPULhedM4D gpuLBN53D/yspvYcubfj+AmUZxa4NX5ObXErmZlorsb64QoxAaYoklpYS8rlrfZNfDv1ocYR+ 8Pvut7HNfIe+Vj+tvSC1KJmWbYemfds0Da5FtoSmDlxfvkQ0+ESoiGRF4Ip2SRrUl7agTbgfU T8ITO7b+pOyS9OSNeisvh5pCq7AD7t1PVsCX0DFeXFCF7qHjW7R+VdSySISKmhC2u+ftIf15h GEnZo1rlp4g8WUaB X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) Wrong advertised-calling-convention From subr.el: looking-back declares optional argument LIMIT mandatory. Such calling-convention deserves a place in doku, but should not send wrong info out of didactics GNU Emacs 25.1.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.14.5) of 2016-08-22 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 04:58:23 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Sep 2016 08:58:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46963 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfkIo-0008F5-V4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:58:23 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38554) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfkIn-0008Er-8H for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:58:21 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfkIf-0005wy-0x for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:58:16 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:50415) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfkIe-0005wf-Tl; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:58:12 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2586 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bfkIe-0002Zu-1C; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:58:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:58:15 +0300 Message-Id: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andreas =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=B6hler?= In-reply-to: (message from Andreas =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=B6hler?= on Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:48:39 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -6.5 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -6.5 (------) > From: Andreas Röhler > Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:48:39 +0200 > > Wrong advertised-calling-convention > > From subr.el: looking-back declares optional argument LIMIT mandatory. > > Such calling-convention deserves a place in doku, but should not send > wrong info out of didactics Are you saying that using advertised-calling-convention is wrong everywhere, or just in this one case? If the latter, what is special about this function? Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 05:51:36 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Sep 2016 09:51:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46987 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfl8K-0001Dq-CE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 05:51:36 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.130]:65325) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfl8H-0001Dc-Oz for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 05:51:34 -0400 Received: from [192.168.178.35] ([77.12.41.50]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue005) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MXkkl-1bcic53kzH-00Wm6b; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:51:27 +0200 Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info To: Eli Zaretskii References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_R=c3=b6hler?= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:57:53 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:gX4CAqlgqON8Y553qA2usRNKtL9RpwTfMGIKCqH38XE9js8Tiyn j+njHZ7UdBU/olWfWdSh3rEDm4dwYdhWZjBwjXq3jXp7Rw6yE1BnVK5taC74pnmNmhak/XQ LUfd7eNhRoVK1E4jQhqS+FVj7mCFLl/WkobVHpNmjio9HPzRahBpwo87nVyRVNL9LoH5Pyt hwwjKSPDB3FuMpwdEzgQw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:XUF6OTKxy+E=:6spgPf1t+YRXZafkEnpI3s Z1qCGDpz0g9a3Vm5B8CnKWBJpAOvY6uMJKBPWv/3rA8AmlPdK49DqY+meNa+JlrB8lqlLgB/X XeHl3RC1NjnkS0IGAOi4/ZSEXRtFX46VFS8o726mPQWlG3gQIFW285wbIzCQ54JpkmGx2ig2I lIUoWFon4yfoYbq7CcJm1faUER3oJA/vwHNrr9+BVSEjBDOaetsyU6lMnSeQa2LtHh4CN6Vra 0UNIJMA2/ZT0AyrvasCGc6xaaRHV6U6bjcK5HyuKFZmVlcCkbw4S45dNnfi15nLkoHEL3k+B2 MuB4ZnRLD7s+1MvYcY9JEphWOPSQHCs4+6i/Z7FTFGfvjBa/lUur7h2JB406Kn/ia6LtBvKMZ bFLTYKxQYQMUjVoqeB2f8da2k1YLGyCBOWIFHV9OyVX6vy5rkmUSCTsvP9h6KYrofu/AJcWfE HJqgcoXjZdhVcvfHXEUuU4ZiHOTTaDCRrwhY4t/F189rY2wZFPkIuUeCb4+FK3K8Qz1A3xGr6 4PrR67iziVIER4ksmUf85brndc2jNXSEvIOUnGakvO3UFM+5oYs1euU5pS7RloxSQTBzeDUU9 1bXRWRsLd492yG1Dk5se1lVO4uhE1NCYt1rYKhzsXn63qpkBZzmsfKY+DCyHUUejYSncvpZ7i eV+ygotBHSlV0Y6QBId8DBC5x02Sae4WiAFmEza8LTyMeZeJrglxD2Zq8P7Q5WHUUjZp/UK96 L2d/Me2kU6I3wxLq X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) On 02.09.2016 10:58, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Andreas Röhler >> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:48:39 +0200 >> >> Wrong advertised-calling-convention >> >> From subr.el: looking-back declares optional argument LIMIT mandatory. >> >> Such calling-convention deserves a place in doku, but should not send >> wrong info out of didactics > Are you saying that using advertised-calling-convention is wrong > everywhere, In the way it's implemented, seems a bad idea everywhere. It cheats the user delivering wrong resp. incomplete signatures. If certain usages are discouraged, that might be told in docstring, by re-writing the function etc. > or just in this one case? If the latter, what is special > about this function? > > Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 06:04:30 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Sep 2016 10:04:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46991 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bflKk-0001X3-HF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 06:04:30 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53969) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bflKf-0001Wj-S8 for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 06:04:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bflKV-0006Py-Nc for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 06:04:16 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:51076) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bflKV-0006PS-KX; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 06:04:11 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2998 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bflKR-0003RD-Pg; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 06:04:08 -0400 Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 13:04:11 +0300 Message-Id: <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andreas =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=B6hler?= In-reply-to: (message from Andreas =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=B6hler?= on Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:57:53 +0200) Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -6.5 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -6.5 (------) > Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org > From: Andreas Röhler > Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:57:53 +0200 > > > Are you saying that using advertised-calling-convention is wrong > > everywhere, > > In the way it's implemented, seems a bad idea everywhere. > It cheats the user delivering wrong resp. incomplete signatures. > > If certain usages are discouraged, that might be told in docstring, by > re-writing the function etc. But advertised-calling-convention affects the doc string, and nothing else. Both the source and the Lisp interpreter ignore it. So it seems its effect is exactly what you are asking for: to tell in the doc string that we would like it to be used this way. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 11:37:41 2016 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Sep 2016 15:37:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47939 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfqXE-0004hk-Ts for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:37:41 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53162) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfqXC-0004hT-TG for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:37:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfqX6-0006en-Vr for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:37:33 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55213) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bfqX6-0006eg-Se for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:37:32 -0400 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bfqX6-0003a0-Dv for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:37:32 -0400 Subject: control message for bug 24353 To: X-Mailer: mail (GNU Mailutils 2.99.98) Message-Id: From: Glenn Morris Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:37:32 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -6.5 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -6.5 (------) severity 24353 wishlist tag 24353 notabug wontfix From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 13:51:12 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Sep 2016 17:51:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47972 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfscS-0001Fs-Io for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 13:51:12 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:50656) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfscR-0001Fh-P3 for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 13:51:12 -0400 Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u82Hp4c5004979 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:51:05 GMT Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u82Hp4Nw022724 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:51:04 GMT Received: from abhmp0014.oracle.com (abhmp0014.oracle.com [141.146.116.20]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u82Hp2tF013581; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:51:03 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:51:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: Eli Zaretskii , =?utf-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBSw7ZobGVy?= Subject: RE: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233] X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) FWIW, I agree with Andreas. Or at least I have a question as to why this was changed (from longstanding practice for this function's doc). The *only* difference I see in the output of `C-h f looking-back', between Emacs 24.5 and my most recent pre-Emacs 25 snapshot (which is not very recent, admittedly) is the false signature (looking-back REGEXP LIMIT &optional GREEDY) instead of the correct signature (looking-back REGEXP &optional LIMIT GREEDY). How does this change help Emacs users? This is not a command, for users. It is a function used by Emacs-Lisp programmers. Sounds like `C-h f' is becoming less useful, and programmers now need to bypass it and go directly to the source code, just to find out the correct signature. If it is so important that people provide LIMIT then spell that out _explicitly_ in the doc as a recommendation. It should be a no-no to just change the advertized signature of a function, without changing the actual signature (code) and without otherwise changing the doc. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 15:03:59 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Sep 2016 19:03:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47980 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bftkt-0002vw-1u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 15:03:59 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39293) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bftkr-0002vk-HO for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 15:03:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bftkj-0000WN-6t for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 15:03:52 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:57715) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bftkj-0000WE-3Y; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 15:03:49 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3778 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bftkf-0008Tg-9i; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 15:03:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 22:03:35 +0300 Message-Id: <83eg52dszc.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Drew Adams In-reply-to: (message from Drew Adams on Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:51:01 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -6.5 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org, andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -6.5 (------) > Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:51:01 -0700 (PDT) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org > > This is not a command, for users. It is a function used by > Emacs-Lisp programmers. Sounds like `C-h f' is becoming less > useful, and programmers now need to bypass it and go directly > to the source code, just to find out the correct signature. The signature is correct, it just advertises LIMIT as a mandatory argument. We could actually make it mandatory, but that would be a backward-incompatible change, so a lesser evil has been chosen. advertised-calling-convention is used in only 28 places in all of Emacs, i.e. it's definitely an extraordinary measure. So saying that "C-h f" becomes less useful cannot even be called an exaggeration. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 16:04:07 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Sep 2016 20:04:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47990 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfuh5-0004K3-0F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 16:04:07 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:42661) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfuh3-0004JY-EI for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 16:04:05 -0400 Received: from userv0022.oracle.com (userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u82K3vr7023288 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 2 Sep 2016 20:03:58 GMT Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u82K3umc004742 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 2 Sep 2016 20:03:56 GMT Received: from abhmp0014.oracle.com (abhmp0014.oracle.com [141.146.116.20]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u82K3tdJ011769; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 20:03:56 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:03:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams Subject: RE: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <> <<83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org>> <> <<83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org>> <> <<83eg52dszc.fsf@gnu.org>> In-Reply-To: <<83eg52dszc.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74] X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org, andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) > > This is not a command, for users. It is a function used by > > Emacs-Lisp programmers. Sounds like `C-h f' is becoming less > > useful, and programmers now need to bypass it and go directly > > to the source code, just to find out the correct signature. >=20 > The signature is correct, it just advertises LIMIT as a mandatory > argument. We could actually make it mandatory, but that would be a > backward-incompatible change, so a lesser evil has been chosen. >=20 > advertised-calling-convention is used in only 28 places in all of > Emacs, i.e. it's definitely an extraordinary measure. So saying that > "C-h f" becomes less useful cannot even be called an exaggeration. I know what advertised-calling-convention is. The argument is not mandatory. So the documented signature is NOT correct. A programmer looking only at the `C-h f' output is misled. It is perfectly possible to invoke `(looking-back "abc")'. I see nothing good coming from this change. Again, if you are so worried about recommending that programmers not invoke the function without a LIMIT argument, then say so explicitly in the doc string. Do not fake the signature to substitute for what is a recommendation. Making the recommendation explicit makes it both clearer and stronger. You do not mislead about what the actual signature is, and you emphasize - call attention to - the recommended practice of using LIMIT. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 16:10:14 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Sep 2016 20:10:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47994 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfun0-0004SY-Lp for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 16:10:14 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:37902) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfumz-0004SJ-6k for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 16:10:13 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 1so48068962wmz.1 for <24353@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 13:10:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AiU4pObrtmW3+IHTEoqfytDfwuOeHG+X19E6KoSZT3Y=; b=wGsVksNRdfKILiCcAegJ4dQwXtWDaxPOk3lCPKqq03U6L7W0bCnt2/OJJMWXPjVaMi z4RBn4NtkfZu+HZRnviGvqWyf1VeA57sni0OSqvKadtbzqthnHpRSNAuEo1FuSx9BZho kcmStdGfzSfNRmLdihcAZpyIIQQRb5wUaZA9kE2GAzTRobJs225uZJA7Q7GPIIQp42aj y2+baBvW9lCZwyEGC/S6c7Es9ZV16fweSTc9CiKQcY0y1tsY97/VIVnbZ0fOv4A+UXOn OGi3pHIZCJBDo6jvvtHU+9a/G6NVqNIi12dzn3u8yKhZ3vu7snQEC1HfacmdvLLLAILO bYzQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AiU4pObrtmW3+IHTEoqfytDfwuOeHG+X19E6KoSZT3Y=; b=eQwQT16jHAcbFJHiwvtuf3FerhIPoigWagPa2cnz/OTMfL+wE7CoSAvpcBYxYejbFt a6wGxmE2VGyh2H5voffvGG69XoejgLqUo+jOmxLDTkOBX5aEvIYZkMSsR/+6sVYYR/Ps O3NDZH1NHYkemGD/sFkZ2N/EzykGKcRWiCi7y2ao1dCUD28FJB0qZFkzGtna1L52YpmL I17BWz5JzxdmO46UggoAe+b5+BygB7a/ks6ECi1/ABq5AqU/AzVoURwXIZ7QjXsk6VBZ 2nT9iBXH6JRJ+PjGYwAejSkp73Gvyw1HzWw+jUBTT8c7rAjuDYLublMSjaKebKLEwNCO 92Mw== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNY/ag8g7XVhJ6mLbosFrKgk48L0xxdwMr7PQtmcwVPHySMb+MekoVgd0KZInwPpg== X-Received: by 10.194.178.102 with SMTP id cx6mr20829978wjc.58.1472847007290; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 13:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([185.105.175.24]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id u7sm3951137wmf.8.2016.09.02.13.10.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Sep 2016 13:10:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info To: Drew Adams , Eli Zaretskii , =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_R=c3=b6hler?= References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> From: Dmitry Gutov Message-ID: <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 23:10:02 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:47.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/47.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On 02.09.2016 20:51, Drew Adams wrote: > How does this change help Emacs users? It forces Emacs Lisp programmers to include the last argument, thus making their code likely faster. Users like faster programs. > If it is so important that people provide LIMIT then spell > that out _explicitly_ in the doc as a recommendation. That's very easy to miss. And like Eli said, the choice was between this and _actually_ changing the signature. I imagine you would like the latter choice even less. > It > should be a no-no to just change the advertized signature of > a function, without changing the actual signature (code) and > without otherwise changing the doc. You have some point there, but mentioning the last argument in the docstring would be rather awkward, considering it's absent in the advertised signature. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 19:59:42 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Sep 2016 23:59:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48086 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfyN4-0005EL-Ko for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 19:59:42 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:33138) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfyN3-0005E7-6V for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 19:59:41 -0400 Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u82NxYEw024896 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 2 Sep 2016 23:59:34 GMT Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u82NxYgW001758 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 2 Sep 2016 23:59:34 GMT Received: from abhmp0003.oracle.com (abhmp0003.oracle.com [141.146.116.9]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u82NxVMk009563; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 23:59:32 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:59:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: Dmitry Gutov , Eli Zaretskii , =?utf-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBSw7ZobGVy?= Subject: RE: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) > > How does this change help Emacs users? >=20 > It forces Emacs Lisp programmers to include the last argument, It certainly does not. It does NOT force anything. It only misleads. It doesn't even explicitly recommend. > thus making their code likely faster. Users like faster programs. The right way to _encourage_ programmers to use it is to tell them precisely that: "Using LIMIT is recommended - it typically results in faster code." Or "strongly recommended". Or "You're nuts if you omit LIMIT!" Or whatever other positive or negative encouragement you think might be most effective and appropriate. Telling them nothing about this and, instead, just showing a false signature, does NOT help them. > > If it is so important that people provide LIMIT then spell > > that out _explicitly_ in the doc as a recommendation. >=20 > That's very easy to miss. It's nowhere near as easy to miss as just moving LIMIT before &optional in the printed (and false) signature. 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. An explicit recommendation is quite effective. It can be as strong and as noticeable as you like, or as gentle and quiet as you like. > And like Eli said, the choice was between this and > _actually_ changing the signature. No, that was not the only choice. The desired change is (apparently) to pass a strong recommendation message, in order to affect programmer behavior. That doesn't happen just by faking a signature. If you want to change behavior, let programmers know that - explicitly. Telling them the (positive) effect of LIMIT is the best way to get them to use it. > I imagine you would like the latter choice even less. It doesn't really affect me, personally. But yes, that would be quite unwise, for Emacs users and code generally. If it aint broke, don't fix it. Is it _sufficiently important_ that code uses LIMIT that you need to break backward compatibility? If so, then you have no choice but to break it. But that is the question. > > It should be a no-no to just change the advertized > > signature of a function, without changing the actual > > signature (code) and without otherwise changing the doc. >=20 > You have some point there, but mentioning the last argument in the > docstring would be rather awkward, considering it's absent in the > advertised signature. Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by that. This doc-string change seems doubly bad, in fact: 1. The signature that is shown is false. 2. We removed this sentence, which was the only suggestion related to performance: "As a general recommendation, try to avoid using `looking-back' wherever possible, since it is slow." If that vague recommendation is not accurate or is not strong enough, then replace it with a more accurate or stronger one. But don't just say NOTHING about performance and NOTHING about the effect of LIMIT on performance, if that's what this is really all about. Programmers and other users are not dumb "losers". They are smart enough to understand what you have to say to them about LIMIT. Just say it - explicitly. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 20:03:15 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 00:03:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48090 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfyQV-0005Kx-5v for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:03:15 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:35847) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfyQT-0005Kj-7o for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:03:13 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id c133so50013935wmd.1 for <24353@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 17:03:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HL0h8m1Z4zGuNKIBWrAJUz1aIWMhNI0s7x9Ckzr0ySs=; b=XToI9QwjJwaQ5OfgyR4M71d/L9f5tfFyNDDY0DIhc7+kLr4suZOVBk1c2XeiycTVrk cGB+cisiV51P9/0f6S4lSxZkUo0ZN3GdRuy0dWoxQENeojJ2+hrVA0W4hcreAEHJXhvB TCXbq7qWdbUv5j8X5nVNuOZywL/DL/ZctYZrHxoCPhS9EhvnBvfqbKxQIGNhVGKqzEe9 SqbXHu/HUx9AVz8QLgJ7TBHT/ag+gZn4wei/9TgjFSGA+lgbOmmbGE61bxip0QjC2XsP kT/YbB5LjsmKySuS76vRtcXk4Dz2FtKorVFup+aXXuX5/riSobYta7JWLPe4bo6Glwrd DkHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HL0h8m1Z4zGuNKIBWrAJUz1aIWMhNI0s7x9Ckzr0ySs=; b=IGvjoY3NnyxPb0C8lzRez2G0lorAGy7cZVi5euZCRUR4QYGXMhWaI9avaf5YIWUFDE tcxezOJeOltFMA90TdFhFSS6CEo4nuhRMje3tqq4v5xAWI4o1pH+eVNXo8BHqJAbQEb5 ypMDUfL6F0+WJUTdR7sHa3ZKnCBFmIZNf1PqdzUVSeNJnynb7bxKbrBo2vQaztv0S0gj Fbo3l6tnAGKylenmD/Lw71NceElsP3aos4by6Qc/YwHQb1pweyagoliILCuasBshFhdP 0u2Cau6ELlDmizYH3sXYkB3e3zvY4+NfplYK2jQD0AKhRYkMme4kmA343QohX2iGl3Z7 /g/A== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNA1HnYAp5ltPhzm16ihSM1D/l/+NVwngOkBFUDMXMH12zhHwAWJs1P0aZuF9tAHA== X-Received: by 10.28.24.73 with SMTP id 70mr5586268wmy.96.1472860987513; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 17:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([185.105.175.24]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m5sm387981wmd.1.2016.09.02.17.03.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Sep 2016 17:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info To: Drew Adams , Eli Zaretskii , =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_R=c3=b6hler?= References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> From: Dmitry Gutov Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 03:03:04 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/49.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On 03.09.2016 02:59, Drew Adams wrote: >>> How does this change help Emacs users? >> >> It forces Emacs Lisp programmers to include the last argument, > > It certainly does not. It does NOT force anything. > It only misleads. It doesn't even explicitly recommend. Well, at least the byte compiler sees the advertised calling convention, and warns when it's violated. So the encouragement is there. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 20:10:56 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 00:10:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48095 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfyXv-0005Vp-Vl for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:10:56 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:35424) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfyXu-0005Va-4Y for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:10:54 -0400 Received: from userv0022.oracle.com (userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u830Al2Z001048 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:10:48 GMT Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u830Akth030020 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:10:46 GMT Received: from abhmp0003.oracle.com (abhmp0003.oracle.com [141.146.116.9]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u830AjG8026949; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:10:45 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <03e0c119-c9db-4d4a-890b-8b94f8cd4932@default> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:10:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: Dmitry Gutov , Eli Zaretskii , =?utf-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBSw7ZobGVy?= Subject: RE: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74] X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) > >>> How does this change help Emacs users? > >> > >> It forces Emacs Lisp programmers to include the last argument, > > > > It certainly does not. It does NOT force anything. > > It only misleads. It doesn't even explicitly recommend. >=20 > Well, at least the byte compiler sees the advertised calling convention, > and warns when it's violated. So the encouragement is there. That's true, and a good point. It's misleading to show the signature wrong. It's especially unhelpful to do ONLY that. Encouragement, recommendation, admonition, and even warning, can help. The more explicit, the better. The more it helps users _understand_ (e.g., say WHY), the better. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 20:14:24 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 00:14:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48105 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfybI-0005bP-E5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:14:24 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:37852) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfybF-0005b9-HR for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:14:22 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f46.google.com with SMTP id e124so66616880ith.0 for <24353@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 17:14:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=jAF0RQ3uftOKW/8I4HDpS9e3BjWpWiD4YBW6Bz6V11w=; b=czZY6CAgopfeSb6ZE27uSyQiAp9R3K3k+O6K2wuvfS3nv4Wk28MpkGJy6QKJfgiEL6 PM/J50tYLKJm7B6blK/LKjbI8+Ff1UYBP2s3wC1r9KZjEtp8DURyuMZmy7WMYvOt0tnt 35oiyj4tO3sWneL12k2u0JccJfHvzCunR1v/cNlnq/mQaoUUM0P81fLn8Ol09LPfYAi3 jBW7zzrBUiXP0o/zPMUs57ZSevQ5jo7L8VqoOxDw9iOd2fR8MB1Mm9mP317yFsqI2rvB 6X4qlaRYQ9Yp5RR07LsRAhVT5L81a41XtcXn3acK+Wa1saHJqF0MkEvhp1gePwxGYZcn M4Fg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=jAF0RQ3uftOKW/8I4HDpS9e3BjWpWiD4YBW6Bz6V11w=; b=hkM7SuZUxbH035jZxNSOCcJV/Z2Rg/lOAnAevQ2qCyT/iSEg/sQPSK1T+fDCF//bK9 itKEKJMCbXa+lKfGyJxmfF/vTmsaMGj/SJz86DDchMytXsxnJbznH+Rgss1RlEhftKdg ho6I+sn1HQ/B5fKoAFf+seRIIhy5AJkV95EZSqprQk7VxScxOrpWM5x+rHhnsdVRCYrM KkizZqJcueU0WQbNFHHWU3rof4u3lQi9CN6qxHEJiy0b2C3ybY2j1nIpDLOcmpzjSdlu 5bfu5gLICe9iCFxgz3oixkl7UhoU6a+E5frDslM4HyUZg4GaXhhXgbPk2frkX1TuLBgL u5HA== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNulZfdBfJuNopYqxU+H/oCuvA+T5pD1xSSMXJxs2b/bKrgfJzw87wQkkzRjdUeMA== X-Received: by 10.36.20.9 with SMTP id 9mr7905031itg.24.1472861656055; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 17:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zony ([45.2.7.130]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id d13sm711380ioj.30.2016.09.02.17.14.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 02 Sep 2016 17:14:15 -0700 (PDT) From: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:14:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:59:30 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: <87oa45on4j.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Andreas =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=B6hler?= , 24353@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) Drew Adams writes: > > The right way to _encourage_ programmers to use it is to > tell them precisely that: "Using LIMIT is recommended - it > typically results in faster code." > > Or "strongly recommended". Or "You're nuts if you omit LIMIT!" > Or whatever other positive or negative encouragement you think > might be most effective and appropriate. > > Telling them nothing about this and, instead, just showing a > false signature, does NOT help them. So something like this: diff --git i/lisp/subr.el w/lisp/subr.el index e9e19d3..4d1267a 100644 --- i/lisp/subr.el +++ w/lisp/subr.el @@ -3533,7 +3533,10 @@ looking-back LIMIT. As a general recommendation, try to avoid using `looking-back' -wherever possible, since it is slow." +wherever possible, since it is slow. + +For backwards compatibility LIMIT may be omitted, but this usage +is deprecated." (declare (advertised-calling-convention (regexp limit &optional greedy) "25.1")) (let ((start (point)) >> > It should be a no-no to just change the advertized >> > signature of a function, without changing the actual >> > signature (code) and without otherwise changing the doc. >> >> You have some point there, but mentioning the last argument in the >> docstring would be rather awkward, considering it's absent in the >> advertised signature. The number (and names) of arguments have not been changed. > > 2. We removed this sentence, which was the only suggestion > related to performance: > > "As a general recommendation, try to avoid using > `looking-back' wherever possible, since it is slow." Not sure which version you're looking at, but that sentence is still present on both emacs-25 and master branches. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 20:15:34 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 00:15:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48109 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfycQ-0005dV-Nq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:15:34 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:38167) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfycP-0005dJ-Me for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:15:33 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 1so54085585wmz.1 for <24353@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 17:15:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wXtia0SD7PbofCE8FTdFKL/eO5KG0tClXrOBkR2AhHU=; b=blT5SCuLzSIY8W7xCmm1P4VIGhvrbOzIhih06u/Bhs4I5xmLI9MSW92eJgm6YtkVtr ddiCcaqB4x3C8YKI880Q5njDvrTmhN9AIDx2wqM8xLOkAXOHGKEZvzC857mtLNYGdI9f MO87ONev28bVKwIY5ObJ0byfcpVynOouennsbtKBHtP5UpC6G+ZKAT5x/EVEVyqzp3Ha 4lr5QM0Y8EgC+CnJ6uRat+DM8bEvN7gbVd3tEgE2oEmGI+rFMAAOl86897OdYZL+SmLR lsqhiBQtKze2tl8AuKEI7iPCFBNGQxQk2moNSngucb3YjQtt4Y8sC0tmgFFhFg7SjwY8 gskw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wXtia0SD7PbofCE8FTdFKL/eO5KG0tClXrOBkR2AhHU=; b=QnGqKApSTej0Iq5bqFZI4ZDEC3mToLKTMeFhFlPJP8wYY0h53cZEkCGdwnPluh2LFw YdzpYsZpU5o/PHbmHH9Aa1hELIRlpgQu0cBrALSFLh5CqWDqxS3JeRdlwc0lk4fNeTdI nKLOk6lfb2tKRnaeOYieb7fY773nXGquw2+2G0rQ1v6pFpG0jraH5JckQeqq4ggyy9xt tzB+ySfr70Sx1NW9CxyZWUFLXJSAY3SWteq+WMWAuF7zfOFXjFqALULPebcLWZr/he/D hL3qnNh3t0W50xcav4qajpWhxt0oWAJNUqEKMT94l1wPAwK5ej1JTTQpYQOyhK7XQnWh S0lA== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOyF6cLcUdo5QsF2/cFrQix2oUoOOZJS/NoxozowkmiyN2KJHhWqGhuChYWc9YeSw== X-Received: by 10.194.190.232 with SMTP id gt8mr23231726wjc.141.1472861728164; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 17:15:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([185.105.175.24]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id w71sm5843252wmw.17.2016.09.02.17.15.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Sep 2016 17:15:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info To: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net, Drew Adams References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> <87oa45on4j.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> From: Dmitry Gutov Message-ID: <05a8a3cc-ab85-7bce-b3e7-2bfc746b36de@yandex.ru> Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 03:15:25 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/49.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87oa45on4j.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_R=c3=b6hler?= , 24353@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On 03.09.2016 03:14, npostavs@users.sourceforge.net wrote: >>> You have some point there, but mentioning the last argument in the >>> docstring would be rather awkward, considering it's absent in the >>> advertised signature. > > The number (and names) of arguments have not been changed. Indeed, that was nonsense. Sorry. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 02 20:29:10 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 00:29:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48117 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfypZ-0005xW-Tn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:29:10 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:38136) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bfypY-0005xK-H2 for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 20:29:08 -0400 Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u830T1Mx013180 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:29:02 GMT Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u830T1bI008019 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:29:01 GMT Received: from abhmp0010.oracle.com (abhmp0010.oracle.com [141.146.116.16]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u830StmC014547; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:29:00 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2e92a7f8-6622-454b-b344-0a1d918442d5@default> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:28:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> <87oa45on4j.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <87oa45on4j.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71] X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , =?utf-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBSw7ZobGVy?= , 24353@debbugs.gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) > > The right way to _encourage_ programmers to use it is to > > tell them precisely that: "Using LIMIT is recommended - it > > typically results in faster code." > > > > Or "strongly recommended". Or "You're nuts if you omit LIMIT!" > > Or whatever other positive or negative encouragement you think > > might be most effective and appropriate. > > > > Telling them nothing about this and, instead, just showing a > > false signature, does NOT help them. >=20 > So something like this: >=20 > diff --git i/lisp/subr.el w/lisp/subr.el > index e9e19d3..4d1267a 100644 > --- i/lisp/subr.el > +++ w/lisp/subr.el > @@ -3533,7 +3533,10 @@ looking-back > LIMIT. >=20 > As a general recommendation, try to avoid using `looking-back' > -wherever possible, since it is slow." > +wherever possible, since it is slow. > + > +For backwards compatibility LIMIT may be omitted, but this usage > +is deprecated." > (declare > (advertised-calling-convention (regexp limit &optional greedy) > "25.1")) > (let ((start (point)) Dunno. Is it deprecated? If so, that presumably means that at some point it is likely to be desupported (impossible to omit LIMIT). Anyway, I've said everything I think I think about this doc. What you do now, if anything, depends on the effect sought. > > 2. We removed this sentence, which was the only suggestion > > related to performance: > > "As a general recommendation, try to avoid using > > `looking-back' wherever possible, since it is slow." >=20 > Not sure which version you're looking at, but that sentence is still > present on both emacs-25 and master branches. Sorry, my bad. It is present. It was hiding below a 1/2-frame window view, and I thought the whole buffer was shown. Darn MS Windows scroll bars - they're there whether there is content to scroll or not. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Sep 03 13:35:28 2016 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 17:35:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48880 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgEql-0005lc-Tv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:35:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40188) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgEqk-0005lP-Eb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:35:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgEqe-0007tO-0F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:35:20 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:44084) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgEqd-0007t4-Tc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:35:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59380) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgEqb-0001jx-Qw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:35:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgEqW-0007sI-Mk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:35:16 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:62328) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgEqW-0007s2-C1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:35:12 -0400 Received: from [18.189.118.169] ([18.189.118.169]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MBke7-1bpLvk0dAV-00Ajgy for ; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 19:35:11 +0200 Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit--Claudel?= Message-ID: <77b23825-05cb-1f30-ebee-4b70dbfa986c@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 13:35:01 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5WNOKBVaRk31KOckccQCNmmUInstV5BrF" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:xsXza1/ipkPxVr1Rc0dSYPvOFFhm+Bh7p4I02zyiQXuVk9TPOWI F6exKyEWnXdmJb9o6anHkFN/e/ltPnpoGiC8IZmUrDYa1CheuKfHEWnI7mPn4LXs5qcj2Sh odBhdswSx+tfKHgVZbRzYOot98Nb6QkE2tSkNifTQUeLjWOsvTk/C76xB8G9sTvcdOYUYfw 6IXfk+nrJCpHo5MpHvT+A== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:MCq7kXfKXy0=:dXWWPTQZrC48uwQhfzScj9 glgdsC0IGaXJO8bO8AwrRQ+PyRsQkv8BlIycXLpa8qpReZ852QGdLXOf7LIKqECxHHafztGmC utnS2TG0t/yxy/Vd8lt5WVe/GwgBpDrhNuRL4OPEKoG8NTyu6k43psuVUmKNZ5m4YbybuueDn 6H52b4XuCMtNDoNWWate3cuvKsjdTk6t/k1K8AFFhf+mjGCGr7iEmeAG+CLmgUip7zfmTEcZ5 9MPGa9xNbzsiL623RHxdYZRoVHY2hL15ZVk+zLEpFHrIQknAeYn8cEAPBLbAgQNXTl50gc0Lm lCZRBw8xME0DLHSrRH8qeuNBdUwSJo0m2Ez8xdy9qgFn486v0WJiouIqCMwg3U1OGIwucDXfC xMe5UBiKmI5cWvD8U4Ts83QqBSbAHiiv4GFQTVLH/VkFTNRUwv0wrQo+qOVCGpCmbE4B/Zh28 3CETpEUyLw1y+cjdMXF0R5nNxvwGeFQMrd8d8btPO9evebZ6CDm4umpXu0YAVSb5+i6/9xxoB iUs/HSpZbbyC50SVDjD1QujRgAGcwWOS//DtfCTghU4T3xg2JWW3WXTuo/eu8mEFoGN74QdeY zgGaU54K6la1Tuf/kV90hewrZ8afOcBHfcIYSHZDckxaoXC3t3+WjwW95iQ899Nz0NKUJ/IOk rfoWHjYLwAGpBTVhTFIy6bmFgwsPq0wU4DhuXnwvC/kIcfp5DA0Qhn+Rma7QK+NBBIhI= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --5WNOKBVaRk31KOckccQCNmmUInstV5BrF Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="a2Q3xosWiVpxKg6WOaF0CvMUfXqX1SixP"; protected-headers="v1" From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit--Claudel?= To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Message-ID: <77b23825-05cb-1f30-ebee-4b70dbfa986c@gmail.com> Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: --a2Q3xosWiVpxKg6WOaF0CvMUfXqX1SixP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2016-09-02 19:59, Drew Adams wrote: >> > thus making their code likely faster. Users like faster programs. > The right way to _encourage_ programmers to use it is to > tell them precisely that: "Using LIMIT is recommended - it > typically results in faster code." >=20 > Or "strongly recommended". Or "You're nuts if you omit LIMIT!" > Or whatever other positive or negative encouragement you think > might be most effective and appropriate. >=20 > Telling them nothing about this and, instead, just showing a > false signature, does NOT help them. This sounds wrong. The signature change causes warnings on all uses that= don't specify LIMIT. That's how I learnt about the change; I wouldn't h= ave updated my code otherwise. So changing the advertised signature seems to help, if only due to the wa= rning side-effect. Cl=C3=A9ment. --a2Q3xosWiVpxKg6WOaF0CvMUfXqX1SixP-- --5WNOKBVaRk31KOckccQCNmmUInstV5BrF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXywnFAAoJEPqg+cTm90wjAX8P/A0HDGXoyBakpXXYCCVzd4Gf jX9Cn41VgEQrpkSfvDR8iAR/6SiVDcIKE+wU9H0RYwFhwtLeTuaXkX5skLTBqBmF 7e7eLj1Tlby8auao8MvozYNlx2InpOXFV1lUNQHZv4OvHcZtcAYjAK41uqjDNzy5 rzQA3gDQSXJSbTq7pGpUdRDDgdfBByd+DjAJLFurw7M3Vp3yU/pF0LS/kr78tBlu QLg8AdNidLm7Tk6wPuURaPS6uDbunJArHOWeE/by+qlw6D6YvIY8D/p0b1ysOV8T Lgkw+Nz0tLBevCkfDz503tRpQ7uJy8hHRLWEXfHwt+OMl8s66M1xlHQ5Pb+4VNH0 ECftnRLbr+WOU2C/0ONkbzPPoCOUfsJ89Z9WRaZQetGt1hgPQSSvvK3KguEQSJCG Eflf7cGJ6SVCaETyyl89/pT+jA51xuOszu09rNd5Ysz2TnAT1Duh+59T7bhTFhP6 0N9XbqsJVLytkRofmekJWRQgSaegJxwUx9b3VG8nEWW3gtU2jDlJgaTlQWcNdAuo 6krUVJ4GuX6udz4E1sogxrdkJoSSrZVtclzT6+55/IHMxlgKCjHnHlEeEQWT+lP7 jBCvBQ0ZiWhBBzkq5IjzWubTj1ziEAMtXGh3lKwbfKoPsEdibH5F+B4RzZ7XiGMB 0iadFejvoGig+z+SIsrN =tm04 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5WNOKBVaRk31KOckccQCNmmUInstV5BrF-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Sep 03 13:50:45 2016 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 17:50:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48899 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgF5Z-0007l9-0r for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:50:45 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42047) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgF5X-0007kr-4x for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:50:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgF5Q-0001lx-PM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:50:37 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:38243) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgF5Q-0001lt-Gz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:50:36 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33018) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgF5O-0005Q1-ED for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:50:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgF5L-0001ld-6k for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:50:34 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.134]:52558) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgF5K-0001lZ-Rs for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 13:50:31 -0400 Received: from [18.189.118.169] ([18.189.118.169]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue004) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MJ09d-1bdl2y3P33-002W48 for ; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 19:50:30 +0200 Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit--Claudel?= Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 13:50:23 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3WabTh45wE58l9EolFxma2oVH0X59G76P" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:MPLaiJ0EznKCvuL/rDrknI4D53wKajLgSLU2O/bgJipIPNCiCsN t+1AtIfjA0a0sr9phRnbTST2B8wBJRW2YwRu82tl39AxOAvJHrZoeqFAGkShBhck1MRNJyn n43qowUZzUlhzkND+jc01hh8/9K6v9vuUzD3rqv3AQHhXFS/++3HPzkHa6A1nGIFSNKMoan KXkPDUAmejEczE4JALMpA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:t1Ewd2w3IwQ=:ilU2+KJ70whcN8TXIAMmaM YHe2Dbg56qN0aN0jRoQ7jT4L10wLEEtt/qGCIk16gJr+Pez3owGetR1lwEcr3qRaeo/EimIvl bKTxSV/GqP+LrCyNrUZXepEYam8RheJIgHnJL8xC9hyY/qsUKroxt/d7/9IHc67a0htB6ucDH gtf6EYkqCP+DBel4KAhH+vrRuGYsnFa7sH6Isy22hM+twLU75vyxLQSsaXJyxbX3cxYln5soj 5FokcTR0nluVp+8hGVjxz1L1/tPviAydGY3TIPEiwT7o9RDNwpWXEmW5WXSzexYVysIetSBBD zFTQOqFTBxlErFuZcjQSrz1SJTLd5dh8vdMMpSDRmJX4Wf4tq7iOI0PFZlC5msNPhW12i7TTn 5Iveeyaj7RKA+RKSpIX0dSZsrSThM0H2ibYmdkX42Fl9sMHqbm0M0YCmTdcE7Cpmww1L+Pt7e 4NLNJSbdIjXja8nr6QlMAtI+hkuGbFoPaYxsjNNYT7pPM6DgZs2gw9oZ+rUZZeyHk3CoAEedh Q2bp4JSUoYgDTWJBTaBsMtIeFsMa7u0RmGW2U5YedaUMEw8Dl1unpLrUtVELVrTRC5QV6KMd7 mN8YYcfjEbpu1qnNlrTWqEpuCA4uYAzPsdNJrnLl+xHxvigfhL9MBtXhs/uwBIVsi8g//pZSK 2reTJYtIOw86Y+vSRKq+cbBm034uHOib3Y9NgBk2z/9oobKhtZoXQ+6fwTQWm4nR1rlA= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --3WabTh45wE58l9EolFxma2oVH0X59G76P Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="uIIJDeTeqsrT1hgpEcKqnP6DDLWNNo6bN"; protected-headers="v1" From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit--Claudel?= To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: --uIIJDeTeqsrT1hgpEcKqnP6DDLWNNo6bN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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?! --uIIJDeTeqsrT1hgpEcKqnP6DDLWNNo6bN-- --3WabTh45wE58l9EolFxma2oVH0X59G76P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXyw1fAAoJEPqg+cTm90wjdMcQALTFc3/C9Hr1Q3d1nGTSwiwR lht+iIYhMHCy6K46KizcdkNgzxfnWOK6VH4miTi9+HbPRqnFFHqMCKDj2lqCvzBg C6DrkFOlUvZL+2mFEUBlH/EXaPHyUb+zx6yWZWy8wU5RbDvPsq3on2l347h5tKft Xdcc/2FLlCiqv2YaacoLkvYQHioq0XANyZSoHXKwpSE0Uz1quwAy1r66Z1LXshlH SpUIl6Xm5yZPW92Z1D9hYUPl88luNWd07NUdlUgnXiAC0GhQ3qmq5jj9gOWAqFRn 3GmWT7ElkMJn+n1yG27/FpvU/pSOsG+mYHTOqMeLiu5GRtln5Bh5KVU27wSEHB2U s4mdTbB4DpVNG0VLZcRhIoColiKdfvviFY6PkXa/mZLUIIKdQWejY92un7lffl7z AAI3qUOXplKUVHbsS77VI7gCOXYRb8d1WdX0R/6WLhFiD/BksyddrA41S4fjeupq XYu79PqFN2SJ/NeomKfvYa32F+pv+qDexT9ztUskyPhx11nDmoyShmjOPiKcX/4e 3WfR8NORicSt/Cq1FGNbbB/96akRQVNOFzGPZZpZln0/sRb3wE0FnTx6+VJr5Y9f qcHvqZCzqYMXgNUsj2sfn4ZsR5fI7YLB7x9EhINPJoDQzUttBhFx+piSJboKZXyU 2mkH5+CWaBxAblLLij2C =QJ1E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3WabTh45wE58l9EolFxma2oVH0X59G76P-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Sep 03 14:10:50 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 18:10:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48917 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFOz-0008FM-Ul for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:10:50 -0400 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:24506) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFOx-0008F7-Qb for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:10:48 -0400 Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u83IAfC0018116 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:10:41 GMT Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u83IAePg002081 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:10:40 GMT Received: from abhmp0010.oracle.com (abhmp0010.oracle.com [141.146.116.16]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u83IAdXd027436; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:10:40 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: =?utf-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgUGl0LS1DbGF1ZGVs?= , 24353@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: RE: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> <77b23825-05cb-1f30-ebee-4b70dbfa986c@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <77b23825-05cb-1f30-ebee-4b70dbfa986c@gmail.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) > >> > thus making their code likely faster. Users like faster programs. > > > > The right way to _encourage_ programmers to use it is to > > tell them precisely that: "Using LIMIT is recommended - it > > typically results in faster code." > > > > Or "strongly recommended". Or "You're nuts if you omit LIMIT!" > > Or whatever other positive or negative encouragement you think > > might be most effective and appropriate. > > > > Telling them nothing about this and, instead, just showing a > > false signature, does NOT help them. >=20 > This sounds wrong. The signature change causes warnings on > all uses that don't specify LIMIT. No, it does not. M-: (looking-back "a") returns t or nil. It does not raise an error. Likewise, if you evaluate that sexp in a buffer or *.el file. The _byte-compiler_ warning has already been mentioned. > That's how I learnt about the change; I wouldn't have > updated my code otherwise. It's not about _updating_ code. There is nothing new here. Not providing LIMIT has always been a bad idea because of performance. When you first wrote your code, presumably you consulted the doc string. The problem, if you did read the doc, is that the "general recommendation" there, at the very end, SAYS NOTHING about LIMIT. It simply recommends not to use `looking-back' at all, if you can avoid it. The right fix is to have the doc do three things: 1. Be honest about the signature. 2. Recommend strongly that you use LIMIT. 3. Say WHY you should use LIMIT: not doing so can lead to poor performance. Had #2 and #3 been in the doc when you (presumably) first consulted it, you would likely have included LIMIT, and there would be no need to "upgrade" your code now. Is there a reason to avoid using `looking-back', even if LIMIT is provided? It too should be mentioned in the doc. =20 > So changing the advertised signature seems to help, if > only due to the warning side-effect. Just fix the doc. It's not about "upgrading" anything. NOTHING HAS CHANGED in this function, apart from a minor doc change and addition of `advertised-calling-convention'. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Sep 03 14:25:19 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 18:25:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48921 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFd1-00009p-97 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:25:19 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.135]:55524) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFcz-00009a-AK for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:25:18 -0400 Received: from [18.189.118.169] ([18.189.118.169]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MKyqu-1bgFcp12bA-0001Lu; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 20:25:07 +0200 Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info To: Drew Adams , 24353@debbugs.gnu.org References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> <77b23825-05cb-1f30-ebee-4b70dbfa986c@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit--Claudel?= Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 14:24:59 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="iLlG7d74M1x9G1nMwK4j0jw0kkhWXatc8" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:N2GN5zSa7tPcGabH9jGsSjv/htMSknWjDyilUxDdf/h/J0yGHeL qvG4QJh9gMRE/giJ3uIuj6JDKYifiE0qLhy0F19a5hRdLS5OWbKEepD6wMCvbBmjqleIExV qiJ8orvSvF24HM6uKIxxG9o3/oSCy3POyjJbiZR2dNsk0BkfMw0B9q7R8Fksc0BPb18Xke0 gLqbR3KZEtY3dpnwrOrCg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:okIlxMXIRO4=:uZDRuf+O8PbOfCUarIHLd5 Hi2tIeYDuVHPONbHF/zjA/Hblh6r+ZuEyRfXRFrFkY+9AZe6MPF+Qua0AG+Dfu1q5c9X5hd+F GqmpjX+fRATKScaEahvf8zVJ4ORzsh/YHWFz8Ihz+sYW1eH7Cw9wu+Ln54lu2DdEO8BE9Sfw2 8InGSl3ow6bI2BvHL/LimddbFPGZRTykVMFXOxPJudQicOZtQ9gdev88hm9aWNuuP5iqfb54j EuumFf82XxTm9FbzDuc0Jx4nmfDwxRKvznSu4rBBgcvDMb0NXL+VhUNOyalEfuqi4/8mNed8t XuAHYeIun7x9f/wbWrwuVL2RIbsiH4yU+x68Lml2UkjOvaM1jhyWGm62coUIuzobWZrovv78o GzuFtgwIp+lEJIjlfrkx8pguDCFi+FxoJMN6UVpIvptzW5nn5AmCRdaUS2PIJdI//kSVheeuv b51rx+suyQ3ba7LunED2dFEbeoweYMEXAZiYdcnPdzVeOCjicrvenkai3pgdGGzhWWLt/yKzf EAD5/EYCc2yGyTihKtDLI1OuBGskJHrTe8EZCQD0gTJ0Dx/xUmBZl0X9KYV2CsuET3r+YihWD AbKs+btlOMZlQdHgw4tubmuZqkunKJ4tRzBmQGrEOuAwSRjHEOHXcD5EUsU6hTh4+oK8W/bU+ LPbQRdLjX64LZjJCGq7f9c7raA0+Ltrwo4ZGAI+KIyFWucwYmhb7Y4wDT/BEHZP99dXE= X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --iLlG7d74M1x9G1nMwK4j0jw0kkhWXatc8 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="UdnwHX0PDirkUJL00ubDiewLLFvU70Mq0"; protected-headers="v1" From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit--Claudel?= To: Drew Adams , 24353@debbugs.gnu.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> <77b23825-05cb-1f30-ebee-4b70dbfa986c@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: --UdnwHX0PDirkUJL00ubDiewLLFvU70Mq0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2016-09-03 14:10, Drew Adams wrote: > When you first wrote your code, presumably you consulted > the doc string. The problem, if you did read the doc, > is that the "general recommendation" there, at the very > end, SAYS NOTHING about LIMIT. Maybe? Or maybe I knew looking-at and used eldoc to get the signature. I = can't recall. > =E2=80=A6 > NOTHING HAS CHANGED in this function, apart from a minor > doc change and addition of `advertised-calling-convention'. Right. And the addition of the advertised-calling-convention caused me, = and perhaps others, to revisit existing code that did not include a limit= =2E So it was a neat addition, since the misleading doc string, or my own car= elessness, caused me to make mistakes in the past. Fortunately, these mis= takes are now fixed, because I got byte-compilation warnings. Very conve= nient. Of course, upgrading the docstring could still be a good idea; but I don'= t make the mistake anymore, since when I write new calls to this function= eldoc asks me to add the LIMIT argument, so mostly don't care about that= update. Cl=C3=A9ment. --UdnwHX0PDirkUJL00ubDiewLLFvU70Mq0-- --iLlG7d74M1x9G1nMwK4j0jw0kkhWXatc8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXyxV8AAoJEPqg+cTm90wjM5UQALF+HLs7pWt0FsEt8SsB1wDp ej5iItD8X/uzdz8Yf8x6BY99zBFgqCUpssbzSqBPTU1FDQ4KK2F4P/xvBeQtZpuf g/nZGtwZ5LlQIyNcTLD5+nMtUyz83Y5izPsmX8nX92MYnR3AALhUy2imTDAXC2on jDEnYW6Y26DgHkurQXBml5kqbeeUDXdBo5YMVe+cPz0NsPMQiWDkYDCMvBGR8u62 YXE/r73qvmjTI32RkW0RpwyB/fdkjvcm10B5HTk+UH7cKMCKec1xKDrQIzEHZ5b1 Rlj2EUFS0ho6rA/lBcnTpZLYpnKfggyjq64W61+7wHtubZQjaflP3VbGEi8bbYPo VuXyRb6nUzQ7S7pqSuLPuGXU0CwUr0nPzz3lqU0HYSIakxqZhNwfUhaQGtJkdLrv hwponaqcKBY4BlRZCRXn7uK+kaJmHwDrS8dtFS3Zmz9ClnWiZwwQjpY8xnF+nk8i XM8Q3xEF1DtT2v9+yeUi781jmr1njnpdHMkDMjTI+0LklzQ2B1But347TtOgqtHx 79psIuQXBxk2VqJ6w3Pl201xhGjp1Ml6hGxYWKloL7cz+SniFZ/xROwpQfL+3Wyw DT6/8FTc0b9t2SLZfekC7ER/jNJ18Hz3dOJfD5BavES66qaJ07ncxt8H0qU9TtTc as5FO2uTDc5CEDJtAyB2 =PLWB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --iLlG7d74M1x9G1nMwK4j0jw0kkhWXatc8-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Sep 03 14:32:16 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 18:32:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48925 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFjk-0000L5-0t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:32:16 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47]:37762) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFjj-0000Ku-1X for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:32:15 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f47.google.com with SMTP id e124so91833792ith.0 for <24353@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 11:32:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GFU+WoWC9w9dyInZ5ZjpM28XKzYIf9zfcTMPGHLlPA4=; b=p6NQr/kygvW2cw7JrHt781V41AmWLd/wOVRGE7198imNWpl50NtIbChgx8j2AYCUme 6sS6lB34jt8lyEB/NhIIRB9bXX/s+oOVssKciFAG2q2dvIjFadv6d5EPmHq/MOO6PLxX 2uTBSiaj3w3/2l4jO6Dk6Vc1QpDbGTpelpvPG1tDKUUr8f+y1t1WV9I4KDt3rwumK2aD Gs+Uajh28jqbERtaB1wYhGNqLGJU3aAPhWShb1jHYL6rudoArgy5eZf3lbNoTLSnJCRm raj8nWeX0HtRUBpXvL+hBZHeW5jpsxglQw2MSssabWfBENvq0Xnc1UMbL1sZDyzpuXAx rkeA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GFU+WoWC9w9dyInZ5ZjpM28XKzYIf9zfcTMPGHLlPA4=; b=VGhxnc3RI94lbwNAoP/3hjLhPIXk9o+xaQ781EnvaFaBJcxU5vZiy3l4FsZR0Km7hC OMgibySu9a22aVElkusa6t4cFJBAdQ4KR57YrX7T5qKBMIIFWkh9IyjKiNkhCQMD1vkS 4qOjXKg0eXTc8dcUAuNXA/Q/A8jtg7tnjIEyhGdx1iuGSVku464CyHs3xo7MZcCKd+lB NkJ+T/NPbrjbG4eYJC0B8FGt/4lL91YaPOY+5Sw54ysc4BZnPG4LSh/eG40dTEsvvq/D KpZzLRzD65UpXFLFlcWkqibujHPpf1Gtq/RLMUqh0QxvmQWvnSp0JvWWEyMUS5njb/Cb Mb+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMka+Kv5A1hmw99fJF+kw8NtAgEWWaNXfqll0aSgAciF1r7vCAaWLItmP4TDfnk1g== X-Received: by 10.36.13.74 with SMTP id 71mr11522966itx.69.1472927529557; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 11:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zony ([45.2.7.130]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id j76sm1548615itb.2.2016.09.03.11.32.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sat, 03 Sep 2016 11:32:08 -0700 (PDT) From: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> <77b23825-05cb-1f30-ebee-4b70dbfa986c@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:31:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Sat, 3 Sep 2016 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: <87twdwal8a.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org, =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) Drew Adams writes: > The right fix is to have the doc do three things: > > 1. Be honest about the signature. Casting this as a moral issue (about "honesty") doesn't seem to be constructive. Anyway, the whole point of advertised-calling-convention is to advertise a signature different from the actual implemented one. > 2. Recommend strongly that you use LIMIT. > 3. Say WHY you should use LIMIT: not doing so can lead > to poor performance. The doc string already says LIMIT if non-nil speeds up the search by specifying a minimum starting position, to avoid checking matches that would start before LIMIT. > > Had #2 and #3 been in the doc when you (presumably) first > consulted it, you would likely have included LIMIT, and > there would be no need to "upgrade" your code now. > > Is there a reason to avoid using `looking-back', even if > LIMIT is provided? It too should be mentioned in the doc. The docstring already says As a general recommendation, try to avoid using =E2=80=98looking-back= =E2=80=99 wherever possible, since it is slow. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Sep 03 14:42:22 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 18:42:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48937 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFtW-0000aL-EE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:42:22 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:25113) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFtU-0000a6-0u for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:42:21 -0400 Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u83IgDMN008701 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:42:13 GMT Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u83IgCrA031388 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:42:13 GMT Received: from abhmp0010.oracle.com (abhmp0010.oracle.com [141.146.116.16]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u83IgCKX006502; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:42:12 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 11:42:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: =?utf-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgUGl0LS1DbGF1ZGVs?= , 24353@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: RE: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71] X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) > > 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. >=20 > 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?! Read the initial bug report. Andreas certainly knew about the advertised calling convention. He reported that the doc shows an incorrect calling convention, which it does. The doc string communicates an incorrect signature. (That's the point of `advertised-calling-convention'.) If you look in the code you discover why (as you just did). From the code you can see _that_ the doc shows an incorrect signature (it is not the real signature), and you can see _why_ it does so (because of `advertised-calling-convention'). It's a judgment call _whether_ we should show the wrong signature for `looking-back'. I think no; you think yes. But the _fact_ that it does not correspond to the real signature is indisputable. As Eli pointed out, there are only 28 occurrences of `advertised-calling-convention' in all of Emacs. It is something used very sparingly - precisely because it misleads (intentionally). The question is whether the doc of _this_ function should mislead about the signature. Should this function's doc tell the truth AND offer specific guidance about the performance implications of LIMIT? Or should it lie about the signature and offer NO guidance about LIMIT? That's the question raised by this bug report. (Yes, the byte-compiler offers some guidance now, but it is limited - just don't-do-it, not why. But the doc offers none.) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Sep 03 14:53:19 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 18:53:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48961 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgG47-0000ry-B3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:53:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49477) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgG45-0000rm-OX for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:53:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgG3x-00039W-Jr for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:53:12 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:43771) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgG3x-00039S-H4; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:53:09 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4110 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bgG3t-000765-J7; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:53:08 -0400 Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 21:52:56 +0300 Message-Id: <83vaycdddj.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Drew Adams In-reply-to: (message from Drew Adams on Sat, 3 Sep 2016 11:42:11 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -6.5 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org, clement.pit@gmail.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -6.5 (------) > Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 11:42:11 -0700 (PDT) > From: Drew Adams > > As Eli pointed out, there are only 28 occurrences of > `advertised-calling-convention' in all of Emacs. It is > something used very sparingly - precisely because it misleads > (intentionally). The question is whether the doc of _this_ > function should mislead about the signature. That decision was already made. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Sep 03 14:57:13 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 18:57:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48965 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgG7s-0000xi-SF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:57:13 -0400 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:28988) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgG7q-0000xU-RA for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:57:11 -0400 Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u83Iv34G012036 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:57:04 GMT Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u83Iv3sY021879 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:57:03 GMT Received: from abhmp0010.oracle.com (abhmp0010.oracle.com [141.146.116.16]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u83Iv2Jl008681; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:57:03 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 11:57:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> <77b23825-05cb-1f30-ebee-4b70dbfa986c@gmail.com> <87twdwal8a.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <87twdwal8a.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org, =?utf-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgUGl0LS1DbGF1ZGVs?= X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) > > The right fix is to have the doc do three things: > > > > 1. Be honest about the signature. >=20 > Casting this as a moral issue (about "honesty") doesn't seem to be > constructive. Anyway, the whole point of advertised-calling-convention > is to advertise a signature different from the actual implemented one. It's not about morality. It's about the signature being=20 accurate/truthful/correct. Substitute "accurate" if that makes it clearer. It's not a moral question. It's about helping users as best we can. What's the most helpful thing to do here? That's the question. And yes, "the whole point of advertised-calling-convention is to advertise a signature different from the actual implemented one." The question is whether that is the right thing to do _here_. It is a tool used sparingly. As I said at the outset, "I have a question as to why this was changed." I question whether _this_ change is a good one - whether this is a good case for using `advertised-calling-convention'. > > 2. Recommend strongly that you use LIMIT. > > 3. Say WHY you should use LIMIT: not doing so can lead > > to poor performance. >=20 > The doc string already says > LIMIT if non-nil speeds up the search by specifying a minimum > starting position, to avoid checking matches that would start > before LIMIT. Right. And is that not enough? Emacs itself uses `looking-back' without LIMIT in several places. Presumably those are places where it should NOT (or cannot) be used (or else they should be corrected). Why would we assume now that other programmers use `looking-back' without LIMIT when they should be providing LIMIT? IOW, where's the problem? > > Had #2 and #3 been in the doc when you (presumably) first > > consulted it, you would likely have included LIMIT, and > > there would be no need to "upgrade" your code now. > > > > Is there a reason to avoid using `looking-back', even if > > LIMIT is provided? It too should be mentioned in the doc. >=20 > The docstring already says > As a general recommendation, try to avoid using > =E2=80=98looking-back=E2=80=99 wherever possible, since it is slow. I know. That's why I asked the question. It just says that it is slow, without reference to LIMIT. Doesn't seem to be as helpful as it presumably could be. But again, are we sure that programmers are misusing the function? Or is this perhaps another case of if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Sep 04 09:08:52 2016 Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Sep 2016 13:08:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49187 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgXAJ-0001NQ-Ot for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2016 09:08:51 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.3]:59865) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgXAH-0001NC-A5 for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 Sep 2016 09:08:50 -0400 Received: from drachen.dragon ([90.186.0.119]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MQeqb-1bUnhv1DPp-00U5OJ; Sun, 04 Sep 2016 15:08:26 +0200 From: Michael Heerdegen To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> <77b23825-05cb-1f30-ebee-4b70dbfa986c@gmail.com> <87twdwal8a.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2016 15:08:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Sat, 3 Sep 2016 11:57:01 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: <87inubg6d4.fsf@web.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:xE41xnOHGaFkUpODAzPmh3WK9nmu0/8ZdFZ71f2P6GFHYt5mZDK xweN+NwwzNli8RfrWPtZpbtqdDJ45GF9oJMdm5vwBqXtDyssYaR8cNKA3RUqqlL7kvjF+XV jiHJZynbddIcvJbZcKmeH/OdNc1EJ3SBUi4MRqVw0J/1meYCG+3KrTtBXubsAjwMhe1bsQI lu5ecdqp0J5vpVuuXDtuQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:lTEtRGX38lc=:JhvwQ3RLkVgGBs3bwnkzM4 KgRpxjypmRIT9UexuHc1spOxUZ33c71qbs8W2O3FQj2vMT8RltGAolK3UblHkTXFjSaJGtl8P l/lZfd4PasuUMamS6O+uQllZWxX4uBlTjm7PPV6unerQOEOtL/PMuWUNfqLmEfc9pEpOKc+Ai VO0iuKNqHQjCmkKWW53oCv7egr42MYaTZtwnPpVwZOUQEl0Btl5wwahktcQmboWE1yHXeM92Y P6pLl2QtbOI+oYAUli2/ZQht5DruFW3OrxsozTi42YF4cX6OwRE+TOuwlMZI8VKicbr2lk4ww wJk79KmhvsQ3wR90YxFTKlZWLlUut9G0ba7l4wKMlJu1INTPGIIVnk10qeBcTIQB/FxK1tRDp efeEoQUFrEmVyxQeWBKCk8QYa/E9aN30IThOY8qU/nNZ0SVVRF5yzZ6VPr5pJYBRn+0SLS1WC veYov8df7nziPlk8p8STPnNfxRoDyFJc3Cf8+8KSnBC+NHhuLd1TbuGaJxVM6K1WNSWjKEyGg eMv53p9LMTn2qJ94e6o6pDB6kws0actozXW1Ovyf9p0pJ5K2Sp2Q2AAnVzAsLKaEWfjypg8/a NcvwDCOlwvpnnKzDUSVdjXrTwteHkQSU6YgVteqgGNQYxA2GV2z3bAl6jmNkIjwWfZQ5Lrmxh rj4JW/tpXlxBM/GfqRXOL/Ww+MEcdkjx/wO6w31LPQhJJ6Cmt+ig8uLSdLnSsOV4zQrp2B4OX 7S1PpSfmM+Zf/Kols2ZnyTDiHiThupEB9FxHBbaz5Qs5PrkCWVro6juJPBnrqRgjkWjZn+RPk PJJt8I2 X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 24353 Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org, =?utf-8?Q?Cl?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel , npostavs@users.sourceforge.net X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) Drew Adams writes: > And yes, "the whole point of advertised-calling-convention is to > advertise a signature different from the actual implemented one." I always thought this would be just a temporary, intermediate state, and the second argument will be made mandatory soon (is that wrong?). With other words, we already give the impression that the second arg is mandatory, in all regards, to force people to change their code. But we don't break old code yet, it is still running, until some later version. And I think this is good: you can still supply (point-min) as limit if you really don't care, but you should make the decision, because it is important to make that decision consciously, and that's why we make the LIMIT arg mandatory. Sure, the effect of `advertized-calling-convention' could be improved to be less confusing, e.g. it could add automatically to the doc something like "the old signature ... is obsolete but currently still supported" or so. If we use `advertized-calling-convention' for anything else then obsoleting signatures - like giving recommendations of how to call a function the best way, I would agree that this would not be a good thing, and it would be better to use the documentation string for this purpose. Michael. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 15 18:59:38 2018 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Apr 2018 22:59:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54707 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f7qcT-0008QL-Ri for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 18:59:38 -0400 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:40259) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f7qcS-0008QD-F5 for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 15 Apr 2018 18:59:36 -0400 Received: from 46.67.12.60.tmi.telenormobil.no ([46.67.12.60] helo=corrigan) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f7qcP-0003Yu-Ny for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:59:35 +0200 Received: from larsi by corrigan with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1f7qcK-0005xe-4z for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:59:28 +0200 To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #24353 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:59:28 +0200 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) close 24353 From unknown Wed Jun 18 23:13:55 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 11:24:06 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Jan 17 17:14:17 2019 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Jan 2019 22:14:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35398 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gkFvV-0000cd-Gn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 17:14:17 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40880) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gkFvR-0000cO-FM for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 17:14:16 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:39641) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gkFvM-0000Gm-Bi for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 17:14:08 -0500 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1gkFvM-0008D7-A4 for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 17:14:08 -0500 Subject: control message for bug 34117 To: X-Mailer: mail (GNU Mailutils 2.99.98) Message-Id: From: Glenn Morris Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 17:14:08 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) unarchive 24353 forcemerge 24353 34117 From unknown Wed Jun 18 23:13:55 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:24:05 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator