describe-function vs. long names

describe-function vs. long names

[jidanni]

On your 80 column terminal, ask yourself "does executing this wrap
unnecessarily?": (describe-function (quote
font-lock-match-c-style-declaration-item-and-skip-to-next))

The problem is that describe-function was invented before the age of
long function names. It's first line of output should be folded, not
wrapped.

Yes, reported weeks ago, but not as clearly as now. P.S., doing ^X^E
(eval-last-sexp) on the above also makes a mess in the minibuffer.

describe-function should fold, not wrap

[jidanni]

On a e.g., 80 column terminal this and any other longish named item
wraps unnecessarily: (describe-function (quote
font-lock-match-c-style-declaration-item-and-skip-to-next))

The problem is that describe-function was invented before the age of
long function names. It's first line of output should be folded, not
wrapped.

Re: describe-function should fold, not wrap

[Davis Herring]

> The problem is that describe-function was invented before the age of
> long function names. It's first line of output should be folded, not
> wrapped.

Do you perhaps mean "filled, not wrapped"?

Davis

-- 
This product is sold by volume, not by mass.  If it appears too dense or
too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during
shipping.

Re: describe-function should fold, not wrap

[jidanni]

>>>>> "DH" == Davis Herring <herring@lanl.gov> writes:

>> The problem is that describe-function was invented before the age of
>> long function names. It's first line of output should be folded, not
>> wrapped.

DH> Do you perhaps mean "filled, not wrapped"?

Yes.

Glad at least one person, you, saw my bug posting.