RE: Question about intended behavior of 'insert-for-yank-1'.

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> >> Thanks, Eli.  Yes, that's true, but note that the doc string for
> >> `insert-for-yank' just refers the reader to `insert-for-yank-1' for
> >> details.  The only doc string where the STRING-passing behavior is
> >> discussed is the doc string of `insert-for-yank-1', and that doc
> >> string indicates, or strongly implies, that the entirety of STRING
> >> is passed (which it isn't).
> >
> >Ah, so this is about the doc string of insert-for-yank, not its
> >subroutine.
> 
> I think that's fair, yes.  It's about the combination of the two doc
> strings: right now, the `insert-for-yank' doc string just refers the
> reader to `insert-for-yank-1' for all the interesting stuff.  If your
> point is that solving this documentation bug involves changing the
> documentation of `insert-for-yank' more than that of `insert-for-yank-1'
> (and that the latter might not changing at all), that makes sense, and I
> thank you for pointing out the real source of the problem.
> 
> >I agree that the doc string of insert-for-yank should describe what it
> >does.  What it says now hardly qualifies as documentation, and
> >referring to an internal subroutine for that is, shall we say,
> >suboptimal ;-)
> 
> Really, stepping back from the trees to see the forest, that should have
> been my first reaction :-).
> 
> >Feel free to improve the doc string of insert-for-yank.
> 
> Will do.
> 
> While I don't see any outright errors in the doc string of `insert-for-
> yank-1', IMHO it should more clearly document that STRING is the default
> argument to FUNCTION, so I may also fix that.

Bell ringing...

http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=286