From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#49245: Enchant dictionaries list not being correctly set, and other minor fixes Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:37:01 +0300 Message-ID: <837dieoy2a.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83a6nap4ot.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17092"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 49245@debbugs.gnu.org To: Reuben Thomas Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 28 16:38:18 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lxsOv-0004Ch-6G for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 16:38:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55172 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lxsOu-00059s-7o for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:38:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58598) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lxsOh-000579-Jb for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:38:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:40686) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lxsOg-0001zt-Le for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:38:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lxsOg-0000c3-IT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:38:02 -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, 28 Jun 2021 14:38:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 49245 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 49245-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B49245.16248910342297 (code B ref 49245); Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:38:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 49245) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jun 2021 14:37:14 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52232 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lxsNu-0000az-11 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:37:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:60726) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lxsNq-0000ak-3P for 49245@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:37:13 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:40456) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lxsNk-0001QV-Mn; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:37:04 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:1797 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lxsNk-000398-Az; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:37:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Reuben Thomas on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:31:01 +0100) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:209060 Archived-At: > From: Reuben Thomas > Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:31:01 +0100 > Cc: 49245@debbugs.gnu.org > > but please don't remove that comment, it > explains something important, and there's no reason to remove it (or > many other similar comments we have throughout our code). > > In that case, please can you explain it, and I can rewrite it so that its significance is more evident. As I said, it > explains why something was changed in the past (which is useful information in a commit message) rather > than how or why the current code does something that may not be obvious just from reading the code > (which would be suitable for a comment). Commit f0a1f8bdb5, which introduces it, has the message "Do > not ignore short words". The current code does not have to *do* anything to check short words; that commit > simply removed a check. I do not see anything in the current code that raises any questions that need > answering by a comment. On the contrary, the comment raises a question: "is there some setting for > minimum word length that I need to be aware of?". So I feel I've missed something here that a rewording of > the comment could fix. It is customary to leave a comment when we delete some code, but are not 100% sure that code was a clear mistake. Since deleting code leaves nothing behind (unlike if you add or change code), the comment serves as a kind of "trace" for what once was there, but is no more. If you want a practical case where this could be useful, imagine a bug report regarding special treatment of words shorter than 3 letters (which are normally ignored).