Re: kmacro.el

[storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)]

Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu> writes:

> I have the impression that the above described behavior was actually
> always the _intended_ behavior and that the fact that the actual
> behavior is different is an inadvertent bug, rather than intentional.

Indeed -- thanks for working on this.

>
> The patch also removes the "(printf format)" from the `C-x C-k C-f'
> prompt.  This is misleading.  No C style printf format is used but an
> Elisp `format' format.  Better no hint than a false hint.  This is
> a specialized function intended for more knowledgeable users anyway.
>
> The other two small changes seem obvious:
>
> (and nil ...
>
> makes no sense.  The other `and' arguments are ignored.

I don't recall why I made that change -- maybe to debug something.

>
> In the call to `message' the extra "%s" is necessary, because the user
> could have used %s or %o sequences in the macro text, that are
> intended literally.

Can't we just eliminate the call to format, i.e. instead of

(message "%s" (format "%s%s..." ...))

use

(message "%s%s..." ...)

> Once it would be determined that these changes, as well as the changes
> I am going to propose to man/kmacro.texi are OK, 

They look OK.  Please install.

>                                                  I also intend to
> propose several changes to docstrings that are not very clear, or even
> misleading.

Please do.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk