Subject: bug#72787: 31.0.50; Invalid describe-function completion candidates

From: Arash Esbati <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:23:17 +0200

Stefan Monnier <[email-masked]> writes:

> Right, indeed this mechanism doesn't distinguish between variables and
> functions.

Thanks, this was a source of confusion, at least for me.

> It would be better to bail if our guessed set of prefixes is too
> large, since it's usually a sign that our heuristic just failed, as
> here.

That sounds like a good approach.

> These look correct to me, they're setter functions.

Ok, but I confess that I'd expect a symbol only here:

,----[ C-h f (setf seq-elt) RET ]
| \(setf\ seq-elt\) is a byte-code-function in ‘seq.el’.
| 
| (\(setf\ seq-elt\) ARG0 ARG &rest ARGS)
| 
| Not documented.
| 
| 
| This is a generic function.
| 
| Implementations:
| 
| (\(setf\ seq-elt\) STORE (SEQUENCE cons) N) in ‘seq.el’.
| 
| Undocumented
| 
| (\(setf\ seq-elt\) STORE (SEQUENCE array) N) in ‘seq.el’.
| 
| Undocumented
| 
`----

Best, Arash