From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#34749: 26.1; `delete-windows-on': (1) doc, (2) bug, (3) bug, (4) candidates Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 14:16:11 +0100 Message-ID: <5C83BC9B.5020803@gmx.at> References: <5C7E4BAB.3050508@gmx.at> <83mum5accd.fsf@gnu.org> <5C824BAC.4090907@gmx.at> <83lg1pa4oa.fsf@gnu.org> <5C82B9E1.1080302@gmx.at> <83zhq587g6.fsf@gnu.org> <5C837BD6.9010200@gmx.at> <83ef7g8gbc.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="95929"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: 34749@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 09 14:17:16 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h2bqm-000Ot7-5M for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 14:17:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58778 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2bql-0001mV-5n for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 08:17:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39939) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2bqa-0001j1-IM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 08:17:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2bqZ-0003nY-SX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 08:17:04 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:51655) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2bqZ-0003nN-PC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 08:17:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2bqY-0002X4-FR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 08:17:03 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: martin rudalics Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 13:17:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34749 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 34749-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B34749.15521373859681 (code B ref 34749); Sat, 09 Mar 2019 13:17:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 34749) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Mar 2019 13:16:25 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36966 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2bpx-0002W5-5q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 08:16:25 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]:57291) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2bpu-0002Vr-Sg for 34749@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 08:16:23 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([46.125.250.89]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lyi0B-1gyMYt2fcl-0168sC; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 14:16:12 +0100 In-Reply-To: <83ef7g8gbc.fsf@gnu.org> X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:6w0Qao2sjiiZxbQvCVwIKX9cAp71j8INOC5uSRCjIutclzNxR6h d3ZHkU+wbZnKz0KXCEy9lU/BGTmGRGPJqYSa+JuuKUGP1Yk77NbvzejeZNo6oe8lorUffSa Q3JxSylnJdCVNNCpDjXxFcNFNQIBcatUAf/s222Loy2EsvBnA03O5O7kZM77trADkxD2l6Z 0nxds5kibmj/YarxlILrA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:1iHAC4p/hoc=:ZgrUAMByffT5VQcxNDvYIq wZP7HWy5OboyQB3tl3rzDBYqgFVP6W+b47O2du7tUf96BBHx8fwblGbKP27zM5DJtBxw6NtUR TVmejGOAwt30+Io4IkXq4FoBIcYr79KlTtUWfYT5B/MefNxxaoS48OLygTmDprhXh2IefZ/No /+RlKRaqo6p/0PRJ6+2verN2BiWdq38wNuqqc5al5DYVOrFLYqOvkU5O6VBYz8eXSwoR30JCB JCKMuxPv0Jzsjtx3yqNUGPzTNb/w4Qu0QBNw22nuTkyUIAtA62GTxtY9z9iX2A2KGXnF2B0cZ 4Sq0HbxEvl29PhCem2BVU0yvb7DrpuhFrFb9y9B65mXh60H6np/RK57FPHm6YF8AWtAn5nXJ1 obVZj4KwwECYeoEYU0h9ti7UeRgSC6hH+4uXFFOcnf1FEOrBMQIii+YebWCERsam+0jSQF4bL qP+/JZgmLCwFcWUyY6WLEG+CUzYClzU34mCsi/PoQ+7sYglPPGi1hFfhxzDnxLCEfr2RfmZY9 kDFY/MxWvdAqCL+nbBVFPFhXZhgbZzHPx3g46OHzkAW5mBZWJy0pNtiXACSQSUH5RyEwjy2ns HNmeFEeO9PlQY2xYDcb3IO6QsZPEt+7sE4hr+hQ+4SV968jWZu3p1FjWfRkgkujIqcuqByvd1 lmSHeecRc1czj+faasCyAh8sTRygrxAwxdfPcrCE0HMjptSOHxPX1Nx3hGzQUvhB/rcHUocOs Q5iIwKDFiKs5lD6V2aIB6HLeuN4ckyx+RLzQZga/hdIA1J/gCy8nXwuxBj9SHyMGLxZ7ma+q X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:156184 Archived-At: > Those other-* function also need to allow the user to specify a count,= > something that we don't have to do here. So there's no reason to > expect consistency here. (I do think it would be good to allow the > user to control the last argument of other-window and other-frame as > well, if that's possible, but the solution doesn't have to be > identical to what we do with delete-windows-on.) It would be confusing if it weren't. >> > =E2=80=A2 It may be a string; its contents are a sequence of = elements >> > separated by newlines, one for each argument(1). Each elem= ent >> > consists of a code character (*note Interactive Codes::) op= tionally >> > followed by a prompt (which some code characters use and so= me >> > ignore). Here is an example: >> > >> > (interactive "P\nbFrobnicate buffer: ") >> > >> > The code letter =E2=80=98P=E2=80=99 sets the command=E2=80=99= s first argument to the raw >> > command prefix (*note Prefix Command Arguments::). =E2=80=98= bFrobnicate >> > buffer: =E2=80=99 prompts the user with =E2=80=98Frobnicate= buffer: =E2=80=99 to enter the >> > name of an existing buffer, which becomes the second and fi= nal >> > argument. >> >> That text is all right and yet was incomprehensible for me at first >> (and second) reading. It's probably just me, so ignore that. > > Maybe we should improve it. But I cannot tell how, because "a > sequence of elements separated by newlines, one for each argument" is > very clear for me. If you can tell what was incomprehensible in that,= > maybe we will be able to come up with an improvement. The text is too perfect with two cross references, a footnote and an example with a hacker idiom. Not a single redundancy, not a word to miss. Probably too terse for me. martin