GNU bug report logs - #44503
27.1; image-scroll-up and image-scroll-down

Previous Next

Full log

Message #17 received at 44503 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Roland Winkler" <winkler <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 44503 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#44503: 27.1; image-scroll-up and image-scroll-down
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 10:34:11 -0500

On Sun Jun 6 2021 Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> "Roland Winkler" <winkler <at> gnu.org> 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?

Previous Next

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