GNU bug report logs - #72787
31.0.50; Invalid describe-function completion candidates

Previous Next

Full log

Message #52 received at 72787 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: michael_heerdegen <at> web.de, pipcet <at> protonmail.com,
 Arash Esbati <arash <at> gnu.org>, 72787 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: Re: bug#72787: 31.0.50; Invalid describe-function completion
 candidates
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:34:04 +0200

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

>> From: Arash Esbati <arash <at> gnu.org>
>> Cc: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>,  michael_heerdegen <at> web.de,
>>   pipcet <at> protonmail.com,  72787 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
>> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:56:58 +0200
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> >> From: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
>> >> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,  michael_heerdegen <at> web.de,
>> >>   72787-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  pipcet <at> protonmail.com
>> >> Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2024 19:41:47 +0200
>> >> 
>> >> Thanks, but the issue remains, so shouldn't the bug remain open as well?
>> >
>> > I reopened it.
>> 
>> Is it possible to revert this change on master as well until a new
>> working patch is available?  IIUC, Stefan noted upthread:
>> 
>>   I think this report makes it clear that
>>   45ae4de0e7ce99c88c62f940f605bca693b8e33f should not have gone to
>>   `emacs-30` but to `master`.  AFAIK it did not fix a regression or even
>>   a user-visible bug.
>> 
>> The current behavior is somewhat annoying.
>
> AFAIU, Stefan later explained that this is a feature, but maybe I
> misunderstood him.  See
>
>   https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=73473#16

AFAIU, the feature here would be loading library foo just in time for
you to get help about symbol foo-bar.  But the way this feature is
currently implemented is by including incorrect completion candidates.
That's not a feature, that's an implementation artifact, which
unfortunately happens to create an unpleasant UX :/

So I suggest doing one of the following:

- implement the feature differently, without this side-effect; or
- make it opt-in; or at least
- allow users to opt-out.


Best,

Eshel

Previous Next

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