GNU bug report logs - #59559
28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append

Previous Next

Full log

Message #50 received at 59559 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: michael_heerdegen <at> web.de, 59559 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [External] : Re: bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook'
 with :append
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:23:24 +0200

> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> CC: "59559 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <59559 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:51:25 +0000
> 
> > How about just adding the obvious to the first sentence:
> > 
> >   Temporarily add function FUN to `minibuffer-setup-hook' while executing
> >   BODY.
> 
> To me, that doesn't help at all.  And as you would
> (usually) say, "function FUN" can just be replaced
> by "FUNCTION" there.

That's a tangent.  Let's keep our focus where it belongs.

> Just saying that the first arg is a function doesn't
> solve the problem.  What is the first arg, exactly?
> Is it evaluated?

How is this different from the below:

  expand-file-name is a built-in function in ‘C source code’.

  (expand-file-name NAME &optional DEFAULT-DIRECTORY)

  Convert filename NAME to absolute, and canonicalize it.
  [...]
  NAME should be a string [...]

Since when do we ask about function's arguments whether they are
evaluated or not? and why for that particular function and not for
others?

> It's a sexp.  Either that sexp is a list `(:append F)',
> in which case only F is evaluated, to provide the
> function to add (append), or the entire FUN sexp is
> evaluated to provide the function to add (prepend).

You are splitting hair.  Once again, saying that an argument can (or
should) be of some form is a paradigm we use a lot in our doc strings,
and this case is not different.

> It's this unusual behavior that needs to be understood,
> and thus described - in particular pointing out that
> the arg isn't just evaluated to begin with.

No, it isn't unusual.

> > All the rest sounds clear to me, and I find the original text less
> > confusing than your proposed change ("expression that should evaluate
> > to a function"?).
> 
> Please see the text suggestions I proposed.  Somehow
> we need to get across the unusual treatment of the
> first arg.

It isn't unusual.  I see nothing here that needs some special wording.

And let's not make this another endless discussion where you refuse to
accept the judgment of others.

Previous Next

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