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#34749: 26.1; `delete-windows-on': (1) doc, (2) bug, (3) bug, (4) candidates Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 12:58:47 +0200 Message-ID: <83ef7g8gbc.fsf@gnu.org> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="65615"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: 34749@debbugs.gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 09 12:00:12 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 1h2Zi8-000GzM-LD for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 12:00:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57272 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2Zi7-0005Ac-Mh for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 06:00:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45328) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2Zhz-00058L-Pe for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 06:00:04 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2Zhy-0001gg-T0 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 06:00:03 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:51638) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2Zhy-0001fS-Jv for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 06:00:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2Zhy-0005Zx-DH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 06:00:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 11:00:02 +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=B34749.155212915521364 (code B ref 34749); Sat, 09 Mar 2019 11:00:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 34749) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Mar 2019 10:59:15 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36949 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2ZhD-0005YW-FB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 05:59:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59054) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2ZhC-0005YK-DN for 34749@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 05:59:15 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:56633) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2Zh3-0000xv-03; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 05:59:07 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1763 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1h2Zgz-00076K-0m; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 05:59:03 -0500 In-reply-to: <5C837BD6.9010200@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Sat, 09 Mar 2019 09:39:50 +0100) 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:156182 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 09:39:50 +0100 > From: martin rudalics > CC: drew.adams@oracle.com, 34749@debbugs.gnu.org > > You mean to use a universal prefix nomenclature such that, for > example, 0 means all visible and iconified frames, 1 all windows on > the selected frame, 2 all visible frames (for a C-u with a numeric > argument only solution) and so on? Something like that, except "C-u C-u" might be easier to type than "C-u 2", so perhaps use the former for some of the possible values. > But the most interesting functions that would benefit from such a > nomenclature are `other-window' and `other-frame' and both use the > prefix argument for skipping. 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 may be a string; its contents are a sequence of elements > > separated by newlines, one for each argument(1). Each element > > consists of a code character (*note Interactive Codes::) optionally > > followed by a prompt (which some code characters use and some > > ignore). Here is an example: > > > > (interactive "P\nbFrobnicate buffer: ") > > > > The code letter ‘P’ sets the command’s first argument to the raw > > command prefix (*note Prefix Command Arguments::). ‘bFrobnicate > > buffer: ’ prompts the user with ‘Frobnicate buffer: ’ to enter the > > name of an existing buffer, which becomes the second and final > > 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. Thanks.