GNU bug report logs - #76234
[PATCH] Prefix argument implies recursive for project-remember/forget-under

Previous Next

Full log

Message #58 received at 76234 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: shipmints <at> gmail.com, 76234 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#76234: [PATCH] Prefix argument implies recursive for
 project-remember/forget-under
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 05:27:56 +0200

On 14/02/2025 10:30, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 05:58:38 +0200
>> Cc: shipmints <at> gmail.com, 76234 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
>>
>> On 13/02/2025 09:28, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, this:
>>>
>>>     +Display a message at the end summarizing what was found.
>>>     +Return the number of detected projects."
>>>
>>> contrasts strangely with this:
>>>
>>>     +Display a message at the end summarizing what was forgotten.
>>>     +Return the number of forgotten projects."
>>>
>>> If we say "forgotten" in the latter case, why do we say "found" (and
>>> not, for example, "remembered" or "new" or "added") in the former?
>>> Doesn't the latter case also "find" projects?
>>
>> It wouldn't include the project that were found in the second scan but
>> weren't "known" previously.
> 
> So you mean the number of previously-known projects that will no
> longer be known?

Yep.

> In that case, should the doc string for project-remember say something
> like "the number of newly-remembered projects"?

Sure.

>>> Also, this:
>>>
>>>     Remember projects below a directory DIR.
>>>
>>> is in contrast with this:
>>>
>>>     Forget all known projects below a directory DIR.
>>>
>>> Why doesn't the former say "all the projects", but the latter does?
>>
>> Good question, I think the latter should not have "all" as well. I think
>> "all" implies the recursive search, at least in some readings.
> 
> And maybe "below" should be "in", so as not to hint on recursive
> descent?

In my reading these mean the same (as opposed to "directly below"), but 
if it helps from your POV - very good.

>>> And a final nit: should we somehow explain in the doc string what it
>>> means to "remember" and to "forget" in this context?
>>
>> Not sure, but we could say that it means adding to and removing from the
>> "known projects list".
> 
> I think adding the reference to the list would be good.

Hmm, I'm not sure what would be a good approach which would not restate 
something already obvious from the text a second time. We could abolish 
both verbs from the docstring ("remember" and "forget"), saying instead 
"add to known projects" and "remove from known projects" - but the 
result would be longer on multiple lines. Longer text can be inherently 
less clear.

Previous Next

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