bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> I disagree, the same problem exists for prefix completion.  Maybe it's
>> less frequent, but it exists nevertheless.

> As I said a couple of times, this difference in degree leads to
> a qualitative difference. It's not much of a problem for prefix
> completion, in practice - for the reasons I gave.

I understood what you said, but as written above I disagree: the same
"confusing" behavior can happen at times with the old code.  It's just
a lot less frequent.  So it's a question of frequency rather
than a qualitative difference.

>> Reread what I wrote: I said "indirectly". It's related not
>> for its functionality but because if we want to be able
>> to accept non-existing functions, then RET can't perform
>> completion any more.

> I'm not arguing that RET should not perform completion anymore.

Obviously not, I have no idea why you take the idea that I think you
said so.


        Stefan