bug#2792: 23.0.90; doc string of switch-to-buffer

bug#2792: 23.0.90; doc string of switch-to-buffer

[Drew Adams]

Get rid of the word "WARNING" in the doc string. This is just helpful
information, not a warning. Warnings are for things that are
inherently dangerous.
 

In GNU Emacs 23.0.90.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2009-02-01 on SOFT-MJASON
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4)'
 

bug#2792: 23.0.90; doc string of switch-to-buffer

[Stefan Monnier]

> Get rid of the word "WARNING" in the doc string. This is just helpful
> information, not a warning. Warnings are for things that are
> inherently dangerous.
 
It's inherently dangerous, in the sense that if I see a call to
`switch-to-buffer' in some Elisp code, I know it's a bug (the counter
examples are so rare they're not worth mentioning).


        Stefan

bug#2792: 23.0.90; doc string of switch-to-buffer

[Drew Adams]

> From: Stefan Monnier Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:23 PM
> > Get rid of the word "WARNING" in the doc string. This is 
> > just helpful information, not a warning. Warnings are for
> > things that are inherently dangerous.
>  
> It's inherently dangerous, in the sense that if I see a call to
> `switch-to-buffer' in some Elisp code, I know it's a bug (the counter
> examples are so rare they're not worth mentioning).

No, danger has nothing to do with this.

Knowing that something is a bug is not knowing that there is a danger. A bug
does not imply danger. Using "WARNING" for something that is not a warning
dilutes its meaning.

Use stronger language, if you like. Say, even, that it is most likely a bug to
use it in Lisp code (or even a "****BUG!!!!****", if you're really so inclined).
But don't use "WARNING".

Use "WARNING" when you know that it is used in code that controls trains on the
same track or nuclear missiles or anthrax tests. ;-)

bug#2792: 23.0.90; doc string of switch-to-buffer

[Drew Adams]

> > > Get rid of the word "WARNING" in the doc string. This is 
> > > just helpful information, not a warning. Warnings are for
> > > things that are inherently dangerous.
> >  
> > It's inherently dangerous, in the sense that if I see a call to
> > `switch-to-buffer' in some Elisp code, I know it's a bug 
> > (the counter examples are so rare they're not worth mentioning).
> 
> No, danger has nothing to do with this.
> 
> Knowing that something is a bug is not knowing that there is 
> a danger. A bug does not imply danger. Using "WARNING" for 
> something that is not a warning dilutes its meaning.
> 
> Use stronger language, if you like. Say, even, that it is 
> most likely a bug to use it in Lisp code (or even a 
> "****BUG!!!!****", if you're really so inclined). But don't 
> use "WARNING".
> 
> Use "WARNING" when you know that it is used in code that 
> controls trains on the same track or nuclear missiles or 
> anthrax tests. ;-)

Oh, BTW. Such diluted WARNINGs apparently do little good. That particular
"WARNING" has been in Emacs since at least Emacs 20, yet there are over 600 grep
hits for `switch-to-buffer' in the distributed Emacs 23 Lisp code.

So much for the Chicken Little approach.