From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file' Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:34:32 -0500 Message-ID: References: <8B7B45455BDC4BFBAC6E24B36D21695F@us.oracle.com><7DCB4AC13F2B4BA19A9BBB34E78086CA@us.oracle.com> <5C41898136234BBFA995CBC4D05B7108@us.oracle.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1321432528 27660 80.91.229.12 (16 Nov 2011 08:35:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:35:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 16 09:35:24 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQaxn-000183-QM for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:35:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55201 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQaxn-0007T4-71 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:35:23 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58723) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQaxk-0007Su-84 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:35:21 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQaxi-0007Rv-JD for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:35:20 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:49923) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQaxi-0007Rn-Hd for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:35:18 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQayP-0002VS-W9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:36:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:36:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10057 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 10057-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10057.13214325199581 (code B ref 10057); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 08:36:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10057) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2011 08:35:19 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQaxi-0002UU-Qn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:35:19 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10] ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RQaxg-0002UN-Kp for 10057@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:35:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RQawy-0000oP-4j; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:34:32 -0500 In-reply-to: <5C41898136234BBFA995CBC4D05B7108@us.oracle.com> (drew.adams@ORACLE.COM) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:36:01 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:53980 Archived-At: > From: "Drew Adams" > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:24:23 -0800 > Cc: 10057@debbugs.gnu.org > > Apparently, we should not bother to point out when parameters to functions etc. > are undefined/undescribed. No. "We" should of course report such potential omissions, but when told that the maintainers don't want to spell that out in the doc, "we" should accept their judgment, instead of raising the level of flames and continuing the argument.