GNU bug report logs - #78124
30.1; `revert-buffer' regression

Previous Next

Full log

Message #22 received at 78124 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 78124 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, kevin.legouguec <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#78124: 30.1; `revert-buffer' regression
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 21:29:21 +0300

> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> CC: "78124 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <78124 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>,
>         Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 16:58:05 +0000
> 
> What's so special about the buffer writability state that it needs
> to be preserved, rather than reflecting the file's writability
> state?

The general agreement was that it is a better default.

> "Each of these functions are called" -> "is", not "are".
> "Each" is singular.
> 
> "return a lambda" and "these lambdas will be called":
> not conventional for our docs (or for other Lisp docs).
> "Lambda expression", "lambda form", or "anonymous
> function" is better.  The Elisp manual uses those terms.
> (Same problem in Elisp node `Reverting'.)
> 
> "called one by one in the order of the list": just say
> they're called in order; the order is obvious.  (And
> the manual doesn't even bother to mention the order.)

Thanks, I made these changes.

Previous Next

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