bug#14426: 24.3; inaccurate statement in 7.10 of the manual

bug#14426: 24.3; inaccurate statement in 7.10 of the manual

[Tshepang Lekhonkhobe]

We see this in the opening paragraph, "no argument is equivalent to an
argument of one". It's not always the case, as in the example for C-u
1
C-k, which removes both the text and the newline. Maybe there's other
examples I don't know about.

bug#14426: 24.3; inaccurate statement in 7.10 of the manual

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Tshepang Lekhonkhobe <tshepang@gmail.com> writes:

> We see this in the opening paragraph, "no argument is equivalent to an
> argument of one". It's not always the case, as in the example for C-u
> 1
> C-k, which removes both the text and the newline. Maybe there's other
> examples I don't know about.

(I'm going through old bug reports that have unfortunately gotten no
responses yet.)

The paragraph says, in part:

--
Some commands interpret the argument as a repetition
count.  For example, giving @kbd{C-f} an argument of ten causes it to
move point forward by ten characters instead of one.  With these
commands, no argument is equivalent to an argument of one, and
negative arguments cause them to move or act in the opposite
direction.
--

I guess you could read that as a blanket statement on all commands that
somehow uses the prefix argument as a repetition command, but it does
say "for example" and "with these", so I think that should be a
sufficient hedge to intuit that this rule doesn't apply to all commands
that repeat.

So I'm closing this bug report.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no