bug#4723: 23.1; doc strings of `multi-isearch-next(-file)-buffer-from-list'

bug#4723: 23.1; doc strings of `multi-isearch-next(-file)-buffer-from-list'

[Drew Adams]

The doc strings of these two functions speak a lot about ChangeLog
buffers. However, there is absolutely nothing in the definitions of
these functions that is particular to ChangeLog buffers.
 
The doc strings should describe these functions (only). Please move
the ChangeLog-relevant info to the appropriate functions that involve
change logs. Presumably, they are consumers of these two functions,
and _for those consumers_, what is said now in these doc strings is
relevant. (It is not relevant to these functions themselves.)
 
Secondly, these two doc strings are currently identical. At least one
of them is therefore not as good as it could be. ;-)
 

In GNU Emacs 23.1.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2009-07-29 on SOFT-MJASON
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (4.4)'
 

bug#4723: marked as done (23.1; doc strings of `multi-isearch-next(-file)-buffer-from-list')

[Emacs bug Tracking System]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 927 bytes --]

Your message dated Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:52:03 +0300
with message-id <87bpk9ve2k.fsf@mail.jurta.org>
and subject line Re: bug#4723: 23.1; doc strings of `multi-isearch-next(-file)-buffer-from-list'
has caused the Emacs bug report #4723,
regarding 23.1; doc strings of `multi-isearch-next(-file)-buffer-from-list'
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
immediately.)


-- 
4723: http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=4723
Emacs Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com with problems

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3708 bytes --]

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>
To: <bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
Subject: 23.1; doc strings of `multi-isearch-next(-file)-buffer-from-list'
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:19:48 -0700
Message-ID: <B39FD3FAC8E645EFAE88E20001C30C6C@us.oracle.com>

The doc strings of these two functions speak a lot about ChangeLog
buffers. However, there is absolutely nothing in the definitions of
these functions that is particular to ChangeLog buffers.
 
The doc strings should describe these functions (only). Please move
the ChangeLog-relevant info to the appropriate functions that involve
change logs. Presumably, they are consumers of these two functions,
and _for those consumers_, what is said now in these doc strings is
relevant. (It is not relevant to these functions themselves.)
 
Secondly, these two doc strings are currently identical. At least one
of them is therefore not as good as it could be. ;-)
 

In GNU Emacs 23.1.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2009-07-29 on SOFT-MJASON
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (4.4)'
 




[-- Attachment #3: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2263 bytes --]

From: Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
Cc: 4723-done@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
Subject: Re: bug#4723: 23.1; doc strings of `multi-isearch-next(-file)-buffer-from-list'
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:52:03 +0300
Message-ID: <87bpk9ve2k.fsf@mail.jurta.org>

> The doc strings of these two functions speak a lot about ChangeLog
> buffers. However, there is absolutely nothing in the definitions of
> these functions that is particular to ChangeLog buffers.
>
> The doc strings should describe these functions (only). Please move
> the ChangeLog-relevant info to the appropriate functions that involve
> change logs. Presumably, they are consumers of these two functions,
> and _for those consumers_, what is said now in these doc strings is
> relevant. (It is not relevant to these functions themselves.)
>
> Secondly, these two doc strings are currently identical. At least one
> of them is therefore not as good as it could be. ;-)

Thanks.  This was a copy&paste error.  Fixed.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/