From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Michael Albinus Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#26925: Improve /doc/lispref/strings.texi (split-string) documentation Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 09:49:24 +0200 Message-ID: <87efv09oqj.fsf@detlef> References: <93AB3C85-27C1-48FF-8C3D-B90B4CF33670@gmail.com> <83o9up2hli.fsf@gnu.org> <7F0AE9BE-93FF-4CF7-8F76-AE1BD0CFDDDC@gmail.com> <83inkx2eeu.fsf@gnu.org> <87vaoxoty1.fsf@rosalinde> <3D9A3600-CF3D-4DD9-866C-CBEE8F692B25@gmail.com> <83o9u5bde1.fsf@gnu.org> <12A8E2CE-F2F5-4DB9-88DE-BCD40513EEBA@gmail.com> <83h8zxb02p.fsf@gnu.org> <98B33B3E-AB18-4BDB-A012-5270F3FCD7C2@gmail.com> <83bmq4bhpv.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1496562613 20758 195.159.176.226 (4 Jun 2017 07:50:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 07:50:13 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 26925@debbugs.gnu.org, Jean-Christophe Helary , stephen.berman@gmx.net To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 04 09:50:08 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dHQIZ-0004uq-Im for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 09:50:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56109 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dHQId-0003Y2-Nz for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 03:50:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42019) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dHQIX-0003Wu-Jf for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 03:50:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dHQIU-0003wy-He for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 03:50:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:51874) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dHQIU-0003ws-Du for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 03:50:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dHQIU-000311-5X for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 03:50:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Michael Albinus Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 07:50:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26925 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 26925-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B26925.149656257811553 (code B ref 26925); Sun, 04 Jun 2017 07:50:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 26925) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Jun 2017 07:49:38 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54551 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dHQI5-00030H-RA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 03:49:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:49165) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dHQI3-000304-Nd for 26925@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 03:49:36 -0400 Original-Received: from detlef.gmx.de ([212.86.42.9]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LnxVE-1doG0V1El6-00g0X2; Sun, 04 Jun 2017 09:49:27 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83bmq4bhpv.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 04 Jun 2017 05:38:04 +0300") X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:TOJ2W+i1VZnil5ie/6bhgQDgp3Iaao4bTeyoeBKSTvxB7enNSV/ cYB1DslDoDJUm3bgYdWEvFLL/sO4VCSROxj/aafWE6Wq8h1ekYstx5aLmvjnlXOiTJ/ai8y sbnIQXhvshLHwqMHoULDUVNNGuGqry6p7HYjt94wqT5dseUtWFc1vJze1iajzzXj87oiNw0 FGFa+Y76qyi/F8iwJ6SkA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:slPy/UlKgmY=:iZbpnuzrF/ncxzEJ1+lgZh Lfle8FowUCHYb09Lari35aF6HEn72rHPcTHNmzBGmh7WPjvl7E1X1c81RZcsCAQHslCgFFbui 4CxzLfdTg2OxnQO7k/5NF8ilSXa172cza3DIPEGTLVKSIMh17U2mX3D+NY2EjodRSjGRkpslJ k0QyHyoiPoSaDHnzLaZIePUCJBW4DeaVWE0PhWd50TRZ9eKFGF+q6H9X7qnQ2whbWAHPPrmNS eZ9HbD3EOizdqyFv7uAFgtNDQX49OmgBoKJMjS+wjrkLy8Q4L406dRXOVWa91nMb8vJ71VlDg usNuyTPmdPEQuXtiBkwMrT6KDqRU92+cOy165JDrJPArdPSg1i/Wm09FV6GJR013wv7Ysv2dU PDE7WMr8BNe7SSp2DRPUf/W/npasrAKtPVQjrGMGIbP+x0LGIIy2rY0MoECDNykXTE+QUa8Hw C/xLwfXSbIix/sPvJxrWh4a6abPTj4OmRlus65t1m7rvhbaJ19odpvXzlMtaqMXpxXo7JB8B7 Mc5kVjqA3hJBkjegkuJtnHWiL0xhiRKdGYBJdAf7lvOVVt4llQAyuVS5iyy2zE0sfxqUiSXCl Ul7xXRnerUUuQ3xIB+dOM6La1m/MeJf4+B4HxtqkkqHgz3dBcMBOkKJ2iho2P3gup+dY5f5qs bSAr1BrQrJmekqZjZOUbJvDkRstpxemxr2JhtTyfkvLdVsXZ8kpNd2PkEoYoeME/TjMceBp83 XCQHQtIF1AvDR18VrI8ioglXFTNkw/0QgCss60twrJcwGpi7JwW+ppt8Wj5LvU11wvLqBbcy 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: 208.118.235.43 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:133245 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: Hi Eli, >> >> It's up to you. I thought it was weird that all the other >> > optional arguments were not labeled as "optional" and only this >> > one. >> > >> > That's not what I see: grepping the ELisp manual for "optional >> > argument" comes up with more than 200 hits. It's quite normal to use >> > that. >> >> I am talking about this function. This function does not use >> "optional arguments" for its other optional arguments. > > Sorry, but I don't see that as a significant evidence. There's > nothing special about this function that would cause us to treat it > any different from the rest. > > Once again, these are matters of personal style, and IMO we shouldn't > make changes motivated by style preferences alone. I don't believe Jean-Christophe is speaking about his personal style. He claims that two different personal styles are used in the `split-string' description in the lispref manual: SEPARATORS and OMIT-NULLS are described as arguments, and TRIM is described as "optional argument" explicitely. He proposes to harmonize this, which I support. And btw, the docstring of `split-string' does not speak about TRIM as "optional argument" either. Best regards, Michael.