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: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 16:25:32 +0300 Message-ID: <83r1dm5837.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83y27u5efd.fsf@gnu.org> <83tuii5bwx.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6820"; 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 Sat Sep 18 15:26:14 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 1mRaMA-0001Z7-9a for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 15:26:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42196 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mRaM8-0006jj-F9 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:26:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44872) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mRaLz-0006gg-Ng for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:26:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:50562) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mRaLz-0003K4-GT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:26:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mRaLz-0001EU-D3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:26:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 13:26:03 +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=B50658.16319715584707 (code B ref 50658); Sat, 18 Sep 2021 13:26:03 +0000 Original-Received: (at 50658) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Sep 2021 13:25:58 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33872 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mRaLu-0001Dq-3E for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:25:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55974) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mRaLp-0001DO-AV for 50658@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:25:53 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:52348) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mRaLj-00037U-T3; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:25:48 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3491 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 1mRaLg-0002Aa-LW; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:25:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Kangas on Sat, 18 Sep 2021 05:49:37 -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:214627 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Kangas > Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 05:49:37 -0700 > Cc: 50658@debbugs.gnu.org > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Thanks. If we are going to show examples (which is a good idea, IMO), > > I think we should show both examples with and without the function > > name, and therefore some wording about the function name being > > optional, and that the rule is not applicable to it, is in order. > > OK, that makes sense. What do you think of this: LGTM, thanks.