GNU bug report logs - #29328
24.5; doc string of `transpose-subr`

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#29328: closed (24.5; doc string of `transpose-subr`)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:47:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:45:30 +0200
with message-id <83o9o0hpt1.fsf <at> gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#29328: 24.5; doc string of `transpose-subr`
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #29328,
regarding 24.5; doc string of `transpose-subr`
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
29328: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=29328
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 24.5; doc string of `transpose-subr`
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:41:40 -0800 (PST)

The doc string should describe each parameter.  Parameter SPECIAL is not
described, and its name is not specific or enlightening.

See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-gnu-emacs/2017-11/msg00190.html



In GNU Emacs 24.5.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
 of 2015-04-11 on LEG570
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --prefix=/c/usr --host=i686-pc-mingw32'

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 29328-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#29328: 24.5; doc string of `transpose-subr`
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:45:30 +0200

> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 07:02:22 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> Cc: 29328 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > > The doc string should describe each parameter.  Parameter SPECIAL is
> > > not described, and its name is not specific or enlightening.
> > 
> > I don't see how it can be meaningfully documented.
> 
> That's tantamount to saying that the parameter has no meaning,
> no behavior.

No, it isn't.  It's tantamount to saying what I have just said.

> If it does something then that something should
> be describable, in some way, at least.  The place to start is
> with the intention - why do we have such a parameter?  What
> does it let you do?  Why/when would code ever make use of it?

Thanks for the lecture.  Rest assured, I asked myself all of those
questions, and then some.  This is an internal subroutine, so it
doesn't have to document everything.

Please accept my judgment on this.

Previous Next

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