From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Glenn Morris Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] /srv/bzr/emacs/emacs-24 r108143: run-hooks-with-args-* do fixes (bug#12393) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:55:12 -0400 Message-ID: <97mx0ng6r3.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <83r4pz25w7.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1347951325 14358 80.91.229.3 (18 Sep 2012 06:55:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:55:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 18 08:55:29 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TDriQ-0007eO-7v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:55:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35052 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TDriM-0002md-3C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:55:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41221) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TDriK-0002mU-4q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:55:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TDriE-0008W9-Fk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:55:20 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:36515) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TDriE-0008W1-Cd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:55:14 -0400 Original-Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TDriD-0007mv-0O; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:55:13 -0400 X-Spook: halcon [Hello to all my friends and fans in domestic X-Ran: =xwygDd,27>,i"OIF,CRtg0r]V[(k[((Fl:t7iQgg-"i>)IsDY"l,^5mfA/VPqnhIppb6Z X-Hue: white X-Attribution: GM In-Reply-To: <83r4pz25w7.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:37:28 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 208.118.235.10 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:153374 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Also, a stylistic issue: we don't normally say "we return" in > documentation, since it's not clear who are "we" in this context. > Something like this would be better: > > The value returned is nil if the function returns nil, non-nil > otherwise. I was being consistent with the pre-existing doc of run-hook-with-args-until-success and run-hook-with-args-until-failure, which use that form (and the passive voice). I didn't feel like correcting them both; but anyone else please feel free.