From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#35222: 26.1; `read-command' documentation Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:55:47 -0400 Message-ID: References: <54098355-6406-459c-9a3a-b7c5b4fe286b@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="44023"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 35222@debbugs.gnu.org To: Noam Postavsky Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 11 20:56:12 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 1hEerr-000BIJ-8p for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 20:56:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53511 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEerq-00062P-5H for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:56:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46014) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEerk-000626-3F for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:56:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEerj-0003jR-6O for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:56:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:41624) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEeri-0003j2-VJ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:56:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hEeri-0006KQ-KW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:56:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 18:56:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 35222 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 35222-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B35222.155500895124292 (code B ref 35222); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 18:56:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 35222) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2019 18:55:51 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55168 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hEerW-0006Jk-KV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:55:50 -0400 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:42177) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hEerU-0006Jc-PR for 35222@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:55:49 -0400 Original-Received: from lechazo.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x3BItljb009595; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:55:48 -0400 Original-Received: by lechazo.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id A98AE604F0; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:55:47 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Noam Postavsky's message of "Wed, 10 Apr 2019 18:24:14 -0400") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV6523=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6523> : inlines <7052> : streams <1818374> : uri <2830338> 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:157515 Archived-At: >> 1. The doc string does not say what happens if DEFAULT is not provided >> (so `nil') and the user enters empty input. And what happens is not >> obvious. Please add that information to the doc string. > Um, can we declare the current behaviour a bug, and instead return nil > in this case? That matches the current doc string (i.e., return > DEFAULT-VALUE), and avoids the whole mess with the empty string symbol > which is weird and pretty useless as far as I can tell. Yes, it would seem to be more in line with the usual expected behavior. The caller can get the current behavior by passing ## as the DEFAULT argument, so there doesn't seem to be any good reason to return ## when DEFAULT was nil. Stefan