GNU bug report logs -
#24353
25.1.1: looking-back wrong info
Previous Next
Reported by: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 08:43:02 UTC
Severity: wishlist
Tags: notabug, wontfix
Merged with 34117
Found in versions 25.1.1, 26.1
Done: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
Message #42 received at 24353 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> 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.
This bug report was last modified 6 years and 124 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.