GNU bug report logs - #78561
[PATCH] Add semantic linefeed support for paragraph filling

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Roi Martin <jroi.martin <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 78561 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, juri <at> linkov.net
Subject: bug#78561: [PATCH] Add semantic linefeed support for paragraph filling
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 13:24:43 +0300

> From: Roi Martin <jroi.martin <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: juri <at> linkov.net, 78561 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 11:56:06 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Roi Martin <jroi.martin <at> gmail.com>
> >> Cc: 78561 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 11:12:49 +0200
> >> 
> >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Neither, AFAIU?  Those two are commands, not fill-paragraph functions.
> >> > They don't implement the protocol defined for fill-paragraph
> >> > functions.
> >> 
> >> It should be possible to use `fill-paragraph-semlf' as
> >> `fill-paragraph-function'.
> >> 
> >> It takes a JUSTIFY argument, which is required by:
> >> 
> >>   (funcall function justify)
> >> 
> >> in the specific case in `fill-paragraph' ("2. Try
> >> fill-paragraph-function.").
> >> 
> >>   ;; 2. Try fill-paragraph-function.
> >>   (and (not (eq fill-paragraph-function t))
> >>             (or fill-paragraph-function
> >>                 (and (minibufferp (current-buffer))
> >>                      (= 1 (point-min))))
> >>             (let ((function (or fill-paragraph-function
> >>                                 ;; In the minibuffer, don't count
> >>                                 ;; the width of the prompt.
> >>                                 'fill-minibuffer-function))
> >>                   ;; If fill-paragraph-function is set, it probably
> >>                   ;; takes care of comments and stuff.  If not, it
> >>                   ;; will have to set fill-paragraph-handle-comment
> >>                   ;; back to t explicitly or return nil.
> >>                   (fill-paragraph-handle-comment nil)
> >>                   (fill-paragraph-function t))
> >>               (funcall function justify)))
> >> 
> >> It also returns a non-nil value to avoid executing the following cases
> >> in `fill-paragraph'.
> >> 
> >> Is there anything missing?
> >
> > The doc string of fill-paragraph-function says:
> >
> >   If the function returns nil, then ‘fill-paragraph’ does its normal work.
> >   A value of t means explicitly "do nothing special".
> >
> > By contrast, the doc string of fill-paragraph-semlf says:
> >
> >   Return the `fill-prefix' used for filling.
> >
> > Maybe the doc string is inaccurate, but if it's accurate, then its
> > return value is not what's expected from fill-paragraph-function.  Or
> > what did I miss?
> 
> No, you are right.
> 
> I decided to return `fill-prefix' in `fill-paragraph-semlf' because it
> seemed to have the same effect as returning t, based on the code I
> attached previously.  Also, returning `fill-paragraph' seemed more
> useful.  But, you are right, the contract mentions nil and t explicitly.
> 
> Then, what's better?  Should we remove the following paragraph from the
> doc string of `fill-paragraph-semlf'?
> 
>   You can use this function as the value of ‘fill-paragraph-function’, so
>   ‘fill-paragraph’ and other filling commands will use it.
> 
> Or should we return t in `fill-paragraph-semlf'?

I don't know.  Is returning fill-prefix useful in some important cases?

> Also, what does "do nothing special" mean exactly?

It means the fill-paragraph-function did all there is to do.

Previous Next

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