From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#35702: xref revert-buffer Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 19:31:46 +0300 Message-ID: <831s0j3ll9.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87tvdzv4m2.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <838suw5jvh.fsf@gnu.org> <835zq059az.fsf@gnu.org> <710f0ac1-80d7-6db8-7653-c58f93b6f4ab@yandex.ru> <831s0o54g7.fsf@gnu.org> <9869e4ac-1b36-b605-22a8-b8bab4910132@yandex.ru> <83r28n4pdn.fsf@gnu.org> <2103dba2-60ec-9752-1ab8-71ed66fafe63@yandex.ru> <83h89j3rus.fsf@gnu.org> <28666899-1fcd-947b-8b2d-528f786302a9@yandex.ru> <831s0m4iz1.fsf@gnu.org> <83y32u32eb.fsf@gnu.org> <83ef4l2mii.fsf@gnu.org> <6d64213c-75f2-ab84-7ec3-2fee4e3742e0@yandex.ru> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="88127"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: 35702@debbugs.gnu.org, juri@linkov.net To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 27 18:32:13 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 1hVIXl-000Mmd-2W for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 27 May 2019 18:32:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48178 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVIXj-000350-Vl for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 27 May 2019 12:32:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39646) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVIXd-00034d-1s for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 27 May 2019 12:32:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVIXb-000366-61 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 27 May 2019 12:32:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:40366) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVIXa-00035b-7o for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 27 May 2019 12:32:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hVIXa-0002iS-4D for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 27 May 2019 12:32:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 16:32:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 35702 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 35702-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B35702.155897471210421 (code B ref 35702); Mon, 27 May 2019 16:32:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 35702) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 May 2019 16:31:52 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53910 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hVIXP-0002ha-Kj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 27 May 2019 12:31:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53393) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hVIXN-0002hM-GA for 35702@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 27 May 2019 12:31:50 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:39651) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVIXH-0002vh-NT; Mon, 27 May 2019 12:31:43 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3367 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hVIXG-0002I5-WE; Mon, 27 May 2019 12:31:43 -0400 In-reply-to: <6d64213c-75f2-ab84-7ec3-2fee4e3742e0@yandex.ru> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Mon, 27 May 2019 17:54:21 +0300) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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:159817 Archived-At: > Cc: 35702@debbugs.gnu.org, juri@linkov.net > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 17:54:21 +0300 > > On 26.05.2019 19:44, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >> It's akin to asking what values could revert-buffer-function have: > >> different ones. > > > > Although in theory there could indeed be an infinite number of values, > > in practice the current actual set is very small, and can be easily > > described. > > And yet, it's not hugely important to the code that's calling it. It was important to me. You prodded me to ask questions and tell you what made the code reading difficult for me, remember? Now you are trying to convince me that it isn't a difficulty, or that I shouldn't be asking for that? > So previously, we passed a list of xrefs to xref--show-xrefs. Now we > pass a function that returns said list instead. It's a fairly trivial > change by itself, so if the previous state of affairs was okay, the new > one shouldn't require a lot of new documentation. You assume that the previous state was okay, which is not a given. Moreover, you assume that the reader remembers there was a list before, and can therefore "easily" translate this knowledge to the new code, instantly understanding that the function now returns the list that was previously passed as argument. That's a lot of assumptions. > > If you want to avoid the (IMO imaginary) danger of > > implying there could be no other values, you can say explicitly that > > other values are possible. > > That depends on the level of detail you would like. The minimal level > description is in the docstring, and it should be fine for understanding > any code that uses FETCHER. I hope you trust me to have read every bit of comment and doc string I could possibly find before complaining. > The general way we describe our code could, of course, be improved, but > I don't subscribe to the idea that we can have a general overview of the > system no matter where we start reading the code. See, I was sure I will get a response like that, which was why I marked what I wrote as . If you don't intend to humor requests for more documentation of the code's workings, then why do you respond to such rants? It's a waste of time for both of us, and the result is known in advance. I guess I should simply shut up about this next time. Sorry I wasn't wiser this time.