GNU bug report logs - #32064
26; doc string of `eval-last-sexp'

Previous Next

Full log

Message #19 received at 32064-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 32064-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#32064: 26; doc string of `eval-last-sexp'
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 12:37:33 +0300

> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 14:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> 
> Looking at `eval-expression-get-print-arguments' and the doc string for `eval-expression', things are a bit clearer.  At least please incorporate something like what is said for `eval-expression' in the doc of `eval-last-sexp'. 

I preferred to fix eval-last-sexp in a somewhat different way.

> But even the `eval-expression' doc is not very good for the description of CHAR-PRINT-LIMIT.  It's not true that "unless given a positive prefix argument" a number value is printed in several... Try a prefix arg of -9, for instance.

Right, fixed.

> The doc of `eval-expression-get-print-arguments' says that it determines the prefix-arg behavior for `eval-last-sexp'.  Is that true?

Yes, AFAICT.

> The doc of `eval-expression-get-print-arguments' needs to specify the logic of what it does, and that info needs to be included in the doc of `eval-expression' and (if appropriate) the doc of `eval-last-sexp'.  Or at least their doc needs to point to such info.

I see no reason to point to eval-expression-get-print-arguments in the
doc string of eval-last-sexp.  If someone reads the code of
eval-last-sexp, they will see the call, and will look up the function.

> The doc string for `eval-expression-print-format' is not great either.  It says only what the result will "typically" look like.  It needs to specify what formats it outputs, under what conditions.

I don't see the need, as the code is quite self-describing.

> And the various doc strings seem to suggest that the handling of the last arg, CHAR-PRINT-LIMIT by `eval-exprresion' is different from its handling by `eval-last-sexp'.  But is that true?

No, it is not true.  Fixed.

I'm closing the bug, thanks for pointing out these blunders.

Previous Next

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