From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#34749: 26.1; `delete-windows-on': (1) doc, (2) bug, (3) bug, (4) candidates Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 14:32:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8ad1ebef-d63d-492f-a542-05c66bca6ad2@default> 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>>> <<<83ef7g8gbc.fsf@gnu.org>>> <<<5C83BC9B.5020803@gmx.at>>> <<>> <<<8336nw807g.fsf@gnu.org>>> <> <<83sgvv7w99.fsf@gnu.org>> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="45019"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: 34749@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 09 23:34:14 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 1h2kXl-000Bbq-Nb for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 23:34:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36329 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2kXk-0003zT-O1 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 17:34:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57703) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2kXe-0003vT-BX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 17:34:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2kXc-0001Wq-Eq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 17:34:06 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:52184) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2kXZ-0001VS-ND for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 17:34:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2kXZ-0005A3-JO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 17:34:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 22:34:01 +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=B34749.155217078319769 (code B ref 34749); Sat, 09 Mar 2019 22:34:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 34749) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Mar 2019 22:33:03 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37494 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2kWc-00058n-NE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 17:33:03 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com ([141.146.126.79]:33532) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2kWa-00058D-QV for 34749@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 17:33:01 -0500 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x29MTQPo168127; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 22:32:54 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2018-07-02; bh=4LwVphYlelXlQ6OL/AsjpPzNk669Lz4cRYQ7Kr/txIM=; b=bvcd9nKjJiN035qfPH0f/lSeEmDi4drgGTv9kJm7B++VxSXCdJ2fvt3tBbsuIIo/me4G paZfiqUEIT76wTM5W8LgrK8n+NQPrCad2ytvMhNNrv6W/X5uDLVgPJdrZnfI2Zc4Ljqm q4xl0OJ/r9e4u1thUpOUV3nSiVb9xFrIMhgX28r0C2Kwf7+EzrHZjnqStkW2x094vos4 k48/dr7r2TXeXBZdeoU6VZOJ7Mg8vB6JWiRTusSV8lubJZFKywAuTp9mxeiU2XO1DAFP eblKlcCJWWM1XSoc9A7TpLHMz101kIcw8XfTWBNlS9pBS/H0/gpKIz1CEvyO19LHpSwp vg== Original-Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by aserp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2r430ea2e0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 09 Mar 2019 22:32:54 +0000 Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x29MWnbL019382 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 9 Mar 2019 22:32:49 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0014.oracle.com (abhmp0014.oracle.com [141.146.116.20]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x29MWnZ8001157; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 22:32:49 GMT In-Reply-To: <<83sgvv7w99.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4810.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=9190 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=839 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903090171 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:156206 Archived-At: > > > > I wonder if it would help to give an example where > > > > we show correspondence between a spec that uses a > > > > string argument to `interactive' that specifies a > > > > few args to the function, of different types, and > > > > a spec that uses a Lisp sexp, which when evaluated > > > > produces a list of those same args. > > > > > > There's an example right after that text. > > > > I don't see an example that shows the correspondence > > between a string arg and a Lisp sexp arg that returns > > a list of args. >=20 > Why is it important what types are the arguments? The issue was the > significance of the newline in the interactive spec string, and that > is independent of the types of the arguments. I don't think anyone said that it's important what types the arguments are or whether arguments of different types are used in the examples. I suggested that we show correspondence between use of a string spec and a Lisp sexp, and do so with the use of more than one arg (so "\n" in the string spec). Martin has not answered wrt whether he thinks doing this would have helped him understand better. Apparently he did not initially understand this well. You asked him to say what parts he didn't understand well. I made a suggestion, guessing that it might help. I don't choose to argue with you about this. Just trying to help.