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#50658: Error messages including function names violates coding conventions Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 15:28:59 +0300 Message-ID: <83czoskho4.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83y27u5efd.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7ei53pr.fsf@gnu.org> <834ka5kzwz.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6988"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 50658@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Kangas Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 28 14:37:18 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 1mVCMH-0001fd-TR for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 14:37:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51652 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mVCMG-0006bP-TM for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:37:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60764) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mVCEI-0007fH-FM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:29:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60758) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mVCEI-0001rX-5M for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:29:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mVCEH-0005Fh-Rt for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:29:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 12:29:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 50658 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 50658-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B50658.163283214120186 (code B ref 50658); Tue, 28 Sep 2021 12:29:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 50658) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Sep 2021 12:29:01 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44071 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mVCEH-0005FS-4g for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:29:01 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55522) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mVCEF-0005FF-Gv for 50658@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:29:00 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:41788) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mVCEA-0001ne-4c; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:28:54 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:2458 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 1mVCE8-0005SS-IM; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:28:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Kangas on Tue, 28 Sep 2021 05:11:23 -0700) 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:215769 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Kangas > Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 05:11:23 -0700 > Cc: 50658@debbugs.gnu.org > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> +Invalid input''. This convention is better avoided in most cases. > > > > That last sentence is unexpected, and seems to contradict everything > > you wrote before it. Which convention should be avoided, and why? > > To be honest, I was a bit unsure about this sentence. I guess I'm > trying to say "don't overdo it" or "don't do it by default just because > you can". > > But perhaps this is already clear from the rest of the text? Yes, I think it is.