From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:31:33 -0400 Message-ID: <87twdwal8a.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> <77b23825-05cb-1f30-ebee-4b70dbfa986c@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1472927607 24506 195.159.176.226 (3 Sep 2016 18:33:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:33:27 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) Cc: 24353@debbugs.gnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 03 20:33:21 2016 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 1bgFkj-0005FD-O1 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 20:33:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47392 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFkf-0003z1-JS for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:33:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37658) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFkZ-0003x1-Pt for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:33:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFkU-0008S4-LB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:33:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:51213) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFkU-0008Rw-Gq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:33:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFkU-0000MF-2W for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:33:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 18:33:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 24353 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix notabug Original-Received: via spool by 24353-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B24353.14729275361312 (code B ref 24353); Sat, 03 Sep 2016 18:33:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 18:32:16 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48925 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFjk-0000L5-0t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:32:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-it0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47]:37762) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFjj-0000Ku-1X for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:32:15 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-it0-f47.google.com with SMTP id e124so91833792ith.0 for <24353@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 11:32:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GFU+WoWC9w9dyInZ5ZjpM28XKzYIf9zfcTMPGHLlPA4=; b=p6NQr/kygvW2cw7JrHt781V41AmWLd/wOVRGE7198imNWpl50NtIbChgx8j2AYCUme 6sS6lB34jt8lyEB/NhIIRB9bXX/s+oOVssKciFAG2q2dvIjFadv6d5EPmHq/MOO6PLxX 2uTBSiaj3w3/2l4jO6Dk6Vc1QpDbGTpelpvPG1tDKUUr8f+y1t1WV9I4KDt3rwumK2aD Gs+Uajh28jqbERtaB1wYhGNqLGJU3aAPhWShb1jHYL6rudoArgy5eZf3lbNoTLSnJCRm raj8nWeX0HtRUBpXvL+hBZHeW5jpsxglQw2MSssabWfBENvq0Xnc1UMbL1sZDyzpuXAx rkeA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GFU+WoWC9w9dyInZ5ZjpM28XKzYIf9zfcTMPGHLlPA4=; b=VGhxnc3RI94lbwNAoP/3hjLhPIXk9o+xaQ781EnvaFaBJcxU5vZiy3l4FsZR0Km7hC OMgibySu9a22aVElkusa6t4cFJBAdQ4KR57YrX7T5qKBMIIFWkh9IyjKiNkhCQMD1vkS 4qOjXKg0eXTc8dcUAuNXA/Q/A8jtg7tnjIEyhGdx1iuGSVku464CyHs3xo7MZcCKd+lB NkJ+T/NPbrjbG4eYJC0B8FGt/4lL91YaPOY+5Sw54ysc4BZnPG4LSh/eG40dTEsvvq/D KpZzLRzD65UpXFLFlcWkqibujHPpf1Gtq/RLMUqh0QxvmQWvnSp0JvWWEyMUS5njb/Cb Mb+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMka+Kv5A1hmw99fJF+kw8NtAgEWWaNXfqll0aSgAciF1r7vCAaWLItmP4TDfnk1g== X-Received: by 10.36.13.74 with SMTP id 71mr11522966itx.69.1472927529557; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 11:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zony ([45.2.7.130]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id j76sm1548615itb.2.2016.09.03.11.32.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sat, 03 Sep 2016 11:32:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Sat, 3 Sep 2016 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT)") 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:122899 Archived-At: Drew Adams writes: > The right fix is to have the doc do three things: > > 1. Be honest about the signature. Casting this as a moral issue (about "honesty") doesn't seem to be constructive. Anyway, the whole point of advertised-calling-convention is to advertise a signature different from the actual implemented one. > 2. Recommend strongly that you use LIMIT. > 3. Say WHY you should use LIMIT: not doing so can lead > to poor performance. The doc string already says LIMIT if non-nil speeds up the search by specifying a minimum starting position, to avoid checking matches that would start before LIMIT. > > Had #2 and #3 been in the doc when you (presumably) first > consulted it, you would likely have included LIMIT, and > there would be no need to "upgrade" your code now. > > Is there a reason to avoid using `looking-back', even if > LIMIT is provided? It too should be mentioned in the doc. The docstring already says As a general recommendation, try to avoid using =E2=80=98looking-back= =E2=80=99 wherever possible, since it is slow.