GNU bug report logs - #25193
[PATCH] Improve the doc of re-search-forward and re-search-backward.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #11 received at 25193 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net
To: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 25193 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Hong Xu <hong <at> topbug.net>
Subject: Re: bug#25193: [PATCH] Improve the doc of re-search-forward and
 re-search-backward.
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 00:42:57 -0400

Tino Calancha <tino.calancha <at> gmail.com> 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.

Previous Next

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