Subject: bug#25193: [PATCH] Improve the doc of re-search-forward and re-search-backward.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 00:42:57 -0400

Tino Calancha <[email-masked]> writes:

> Thanks for the report.
> You could refer for details to the manual, maybe providing a link to the
> proper node; but you don't want to refer to the doc string of another
> function 'B' to document the arguments of the current function 'A'.
> IMO the doc string of 'A' must introduce all its arguments.
>
> Otherwise, i am worry you could go an step further, f.i.
> `search-forward'/ `search-backward' share the same optional arguments, so:

I think it's okay to point to other functions, as long as we keep the
chain to length 1.

> 1) doc string `re-search-backward': See the doc string of `re-search-forward'
>    for details.
> 2)  doc string `re-search-forward': See the doc string of
>    `search-backward' for details.
> 3)  doc string `search-backward': See the doc string of
>    `search-forward' for details.
> 4)  doc string `search-forward': Wow, you are are very persistent
>     user! Please see the manual for details, i am a very busy doc string.

:D

But if all of `re-search-backword', re-search-forward',
`search-backward', would say "see doc string of `search-forward'" I
think it would be okay.