GNU bug report logs - #38306
Why the pp-buffer function is not interactive?

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Aydar Zarifullin <aydar.js <at> gmail.com>

Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:12:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: fixed

Fixed in version 27.1

Done: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 38306 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 38306 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox

Report forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#38306; Package emacs. (Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:12:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent to Aydar Zarifullin <aydar.js <at> gmail.com>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org. (Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:12:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Aydar Zarifullin <aydar.js <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Why the pp-buffer function is not interactive?
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 02:26:03 +0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
In my opinion it would be convenient if the pp-buffer function was an emacs
command.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]
Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#38306; Package emacs. (Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:10:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #8 received at 38306 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Aydar Zarifullin <aydar.js <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 38306 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#38306: Why the pp-buffer function is not interactive?
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 14:09:42 +0100

Aydar Zarifullin <aydar.js <at> gmail.com> writes:

> In my opinion it would be convenient if the pp-buffer function was an emacs
> command.

Make sense to me.  I've now done this in Emacs 27.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
Added tag(s) fixed. Request was from Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> to control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:10:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.
bug marked as fixed in version 27.1, send any further explanations to 38306 <at> debbugs.gnu.org and Aydar Zarifullin <aydar.js <at> gmail.com> Request was from Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> to control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:10:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#38306; Package emacs. (Thu, 21 Nov 2019 14:30:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 38306 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 38306 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, aydar.js <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#38306: Why the pp-buffer function is not interactive?
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:29:15 +0200

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 14:09:42 +0100
> Cc: 38306 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Aydar Zarifullin <aydar.js <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > In my opinion it would be convenient if the pp-buffer function was an emacs
> > command.
> 
> Make sense to me.  I've now done this in Emacs 27.

Should this be in NEWS?  How about manuals?

Thanks.
Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#38306; Package emacs. (Thu, 21 Nov 2019 17:49:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #18 received at 38306 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 38306 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, aydar.js <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#38306: Why the pp-buffer function is not interactive?
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:48:37 +0100

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> > In my opinion it would be convenient if the pp-buffer function was an emacs
>> > command.
>> 
>> Make sense to me.  I've now done this in Emacs 27.
>
> Should this be in NEWS?  How about manuals?

I didn't think the change deserved either of those things -- pp-buffer
isn't documented, and adding the (interactive) spec to it didn't seem
newsworthy.  

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#38306; Package emacs. (Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:08:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #21 received at 38306 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 38306 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, aydar.js <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#38306: Why the pp-buffer function is not interactive?
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 20:08:03 +0200

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Cc: aydar.js <at> gmail.com,  38306 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:48:37 +0100
> 
> > Should this be in NEWS?  How about manuals?
> 
> I didn't think the change deserved either of those things -- pp-buffer
> isn't documented, and adding the (interactive) spec to it didn't seem
> newsworthy.  

I'm asking whether it should be documented, now that it's a command.
But if you think it's an unimportant command that almost no one will
need to know about, fine with me.
Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#38306; Package emacs. (Thu, 21 Nov 2019 22:56:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #24 received at 38306 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 38306 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, aydar.js <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#38306: Why the pp-buffer function is not interactive?
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 23:55:41 +0100

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

> I'm asking whether it should be documented, now that it's a command.
> But if you think it's an unimportant command that almost no one will
> need to know about, fine with me.

Yeah, it's pretty minor, and people can discover it via M-x pp-TAB if
they're into pretty-printing.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org> to internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:24:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 5 years and 178 days ago.

Previous Next

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