GNU bug report logs - #79197
[PATCH] ; * lisp/simple.el (yank): Update docstring.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #62 received at 79197 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: James Thomas <jimjoe <at> gmx.net>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 79197 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#79197: [PATCH] ; * lisp/simple.el (yank): Update
 docstring., Re: bug#79197: [PATCH] ; * lisp/simple.el (yank): Update
 docstring., Re: bug#79197: [PATCH] ; * lisp/simple.el (yank): Update
 docstring.
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 03:39:41 -0400

>>> diff --git a/lisp/simple.el b/lisp/simple.el
>>> index cd13e0a55f4..97701ead69d 100644
>>> --- a/lisp/simple.el
>>> +++ b/lisp/simple.el
>>> @@ -5758,9 +5758,10 @@ kill-new
>>>  	  (setcar kill-ring string)
>>>          (let ((history-delete-duplicates nil))
>>>            (add-to-history 'kill-ring string kill-ring-max t))))
>>> -    (setq kill-ring-yank-pointer kill-ring)
>>> +    (prog1
>>> +        (setq kill-ring-yank-pointer kill-ring)
>>>      (if interprogram-cut-function
>>> -        (funcall interprogram-cut-function string))))
>>> +        (funcall interprogram-cut-function string)))))
>>
>> Why do we need this hunk?
>
> For the correct return value?

That's already what `prog1` says in the code, so it just pushes the
question a step further: why do we care about the return value here?
The docstring doesn't mention anything about the return value (so it's
not clear which value is more "correct"), and a quick perusal of the
code suggests that most callers don't care about the return value.

So, if we keep this hunk, it should come with a comment explaining why
we care, or a change to the docstring to document the return value.


        Stefan

Previous Next

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