Subject: bug#32064: 26; doc string of `eval-last-sexp'

From: Noam Postavsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 07:47:29 -0400

Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> writes:

>> I agree.  I think the solution is to simplify the interface somewhat.
>
> These additional features weer added just recently, so I see no reason
> why we should remove them now.  Certainly not because the doc string
> needs to be fixed.

>> As it stands, we're trying to cram a lot of functionality into the
>> prefix argument, and the encoding is too difficult to remember (both in
>> terms of implementing & documenting, as well as for using).
>
> I had no difficulty bringing the doc string in line with the
> implementation, please take a look.

Thanks, I think that fixes all the typos and mistaken descriptions.  I
am still of the opinion that the prefix args apart from C-u are too
complicated to be of much use.  But we can wait a bit longer and maybe
the next formatting feature will be the straw that breaks the proverbial
camel's back.