Subject: Re: bug#44503: 27.1; image-scroll-up and image-scroll-down

From: "Roland Winkler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 10:34:11 -0500

On Sun Jun 6 2021 Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> "Roland Winkler" <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > On Sat Nov 7 2020 Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Thanks.  Can you suggest the changes to the relevant doc strings?
> >
> > Digging in the sources, I realized that using raw prefix args 
> > includes not only image-scroll-up and image-scroll-down but also the
> > built-in functions scroll-up and scroll-down.  I'll try to come up
> > with a patch that covers all relevant doc strings.
> 
> Did you make any further progress here?

I am sorry, I haven't had as much progress as I had wanted to.  I
realized that the discrepancy between documented behavior and actual
code exists in a larger number of commands than I had expected.  So
the question becomes: for how many commands do we want to include a
remark in the docstring saying that due to historical reasons they
call prefix-numeric-value not in their interactive specs, but
scroll_command calls prefix_numeric_value in its body, which defines
how these commands interpret the argument.  (The actual wording in the
docstrings should probably be different.)

I guess for the built-in functions scroll-up and scroll-down as well
as image-scroll-up and image-scroll-down it is most important to
mention this and we could leave the docstrings of other commands
untouched.  What do you think?