GNU bug report logs -
#34794
26.1; doc of `read-buffer'
Previous Next
Reported by: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 16:32:02 UTC
Severity: minor
Found in version 26.1
Done: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
> Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 14:32:22 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> Cc: 34794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > Please suggest such a text, because I definitely don't see an easy way
> > of saying that, without triggering more bug reports like this one.
>
> 1. OK. How about this?
Thanks, I used some ideas from your suggestion.
> 4. There appears to be a fairly large bug in the
> behavior, BTW. The function is supposed to return a
> buffer name, which is presumably a string.
>
> But try this, hitting `RET' with empty minibuffer input:
>
> (read-buffer "b: " (selected-window) t)
>
> That returns a window! And this returns a number, not
> a numeric string:
>
> (read-buffer "b: " 42 t)
>
> It apparently can return anything at all.
AFAICT, it just behaves according to documentation of DEF.
> This is in spite of the fact that the REQUIRE-MATCH
> arg is `t', and according to the doc that should
> mean that you cannot exit the minibuffer unless the
> input corresponds to an existing buffer.
That's only valid for something the user types, AFAIU.
> Do you prefer a separate bug report for this bug, or
> can you fix it based on this report?
I don't really see what is there to fix.
> 5. Other doc-string bugs (fixed in my suggestion):
>
> * Doesn't say that it reads with completion. (You
> can guess that, when you read some of the argument
> descriptions - it mentions completion only in
> passing.)
> * Doesn't say in what way REQUIRE-MATCH "determines
> whether non-existing buffer names are allowed".
> It refers to `completing-read', but that says
> nothing about existing buffers - that says only
> that WHATEVER the set of candidates, you cannot
> exit the minibuffer without matching one of them.
> * Arguments are described out of order.
> * Arg PREDICATE is described after the statement
> about `read-buffer-function'.
I believe I fixed all of these now.
Thanks.
This bug report was last modified 6 years and 151 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.