* bug#20164: 25.0.50; Do not tell users that `x-show-tip' is internal
@ 2015-03-22 16:40 Drew Adams
2019-08-02 12:28 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Drew Adams @ 2015-03-22 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 20164
The doc string says this:
This is an internal function; Lisp code should call `tooltip-show'.
Why? While it is true that you can get, using `tooltip-show', the
behavior of arg PARMS by binding `tooltip-frame-parameters', the behavior
of args DX and DY by binding `tooltip-x-offset' and `tooltip-y-offset',
and the behavior of arg TIMEOUT by binding `tooltip-hide-delay' (which is
not documented, BTW), you cannot the behavior of arg FRAME. And binding
user options is not really a great way to control the function behavior,
in general.
So `tooltip-show' is not really a user-level substitute for "internal"
`x-tooltip-show'.
What's more, the doc of `tooltip-show' explicitly refers to how variable
`x-max-tooltip-size' affects the behavior. Why refer to that "internal"
variable? And if it is not "internal" then why does it have the prefix
`x-'? Why isn't there a `tooltip-max-size' option, corresponding to the
other `tooltip-*' options?
It looks like this design/implementation is incomplete. It is great to
have `tooltip-mode' and `tooltip-show'. But we should not be telling
users to use only `tooltip-show' and not `x-show-tip'. I see no reason
for that. The two functions are different; that's all. Neither should
be considered more "internal" than the other.
In GNU Emacs 25.0.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
of 2014-10-20 on LEG570
Bzr revision: 118168 rgm@gnu.org-20141020195941-icp42t8ttcnud09g
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
`configure --enable-checking=yes,glyphs CPPFLAGS=-DGLYPH_DEBUG=1'
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#20164: 25.0.50; Do not tell users that `x-show-tip' is internal
2015-03-22 16:40 bug#20164: 25.0.50; Do not tell users that `x-show-tip' is internal Drew Adams
@ 2019-08-02 12:28 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-08-02 14:20 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-08-02 15:38 ` Drew Adams
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lars Ingebrigtsen @ 2019-08-02 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Drew Adams; +Cc: 20164
Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
> The doc string says this:
>
> This is an internal function; Lisp code should call `tooltip-show'.
>
> Why? While it is true that you can get, using `tooltip-show', the
> behavior of arg PARMS by binding `tooltip-frame-parameters', the behavior
> of args DX and DY by binding `tooltip-x-offset' and `tooltip-y-offset',
> and the behavior of arg TIMEOUT by binding `tooltip-hide-delay' (which is
> not documented, BTW), you cannot the behavior of arg FRAME. And binding
> user options is not really a great way to control the function behavior,
> in general.
I agree that the calling conventions for `x-show-tip' seems to be much
nicer than `tooltip-show'.
> So `tooltip-show' is not really a user-level substitute for "internal"
> `x-tooltip-show'.
>
> What's more, the doc of `tooltip-show' explicitly refers to how variable
> `x-max-tooltip-size' affects the behavior. Why refer to that "internal"
> variable? And if it is not "internal" then why does it have the prefix
> `x-'? Why isn't there a `tooltip-max-size' option, corresponding to the
> other `tooltip-*' options?
The commit that added the line about it being internal just says "doc
fix", so I can only guess what the reason behind it was: Perhaps we're
trying to get away from all `x-' functions and replace them with generic
functions? But, as you say, then it's odd that we still have
`x-max-tooltip-size'.
So perhaps the way forward here is to make `x-max-tooltip-size' an
obsolete alias for a new variable `tooltip-max-size'? And add a way to
specify the FRAME parameter somehow... but the calling convention for
that function is kinda meh.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#20164: 25.0.50; Do not tell users that `x-show-tip' is internal
2019-08-02 12:28 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
@ 2019-08-02 14:20 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-08-02 18:03 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-08-02 15:38 ` Drew Adams
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2019-08-02 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen; +Cc: 20164
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 14:28:45 +0200
> Cc: 20164@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
>
> > The doc string says this:
> >
> > This is an internal function; Lisp code should call `tooltip-show'.
> >
> > Why? While it is true that you can get, using `tooltip-show', the
> > behavior of arg PARMS by binding `tooltip-frame-parameters', the behavior
> > of args DX and DY by binding `tooltip-x-offset' and `tooltip-y-offset',
> > and the behavior of arg TIMEOUT by binding `tooltip-hide-delay' (which is
> > not documented, BTW), you cannot the behavior of arg FRAME. And binding
> > user options is not really a great way to control the function behavior,
> > in general.
I wonder when we will stop wasting time and energy on hair-splitting
reports such as this one. Probably never. Sigh.
> I agree that the calling conventions for `x-show-tip' seems to be much
> nicer than `tooltip-show'.
If you do, please explain it to me, because the above arguments don't
convince me, certainly not that x-show-tip's API is "nicer". Maybe
I'm missing something.
Tooltips are about showing short hints about various elements of the
UI, they are not general-purpose tools for showing arbitrary text in
arbitrary places. And tooltip-show looks entirely reasonable and
adequate for the job as defined above.
It could be that someone tried to use tooltips as poor-man's child
frames, but we now have those as first-class objects, so any such
(ab)use would be unnecessary.
> > So `tooltip-show' is not really a user-level substitute for "internal"
> > `x-tooltip-show'.
> >
> > What's more, the doc of `tooltip-show' explicitly refers to how variable
> > `x-max-tooltip-size' affects the behavior. Why refer to that "internal"
> > variable? And if it is not "internal" then why does it have the prefix
> > `x-'? Why isn't there a `tooltip-max-size' option, corresponding to the
> > other `tooltip-*' options?
I don't remember why I added a reference to that variable when I
extended the doc string of tooltip-show in 2001(!), but I hope no one
will argue that it's important to know the displayed text might be
truncated.
> The commit that added the line about it being internal just says "doc
> fix",
Guilty as charged ;-)
> so I can only guess what the reason behind it was
No need for guessing; see the short discussion starting at
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-pretest-bug/2007-03/msg00261.html
The conclusion to take out of that discussion is that whoever uses
x-show-tip should know very well what they are doing, which is another
way of saying "kids, don't try that at home", a.k.a. "an internal
function".
> So perhaps the way forward here is to make `x-max-tooltip-size' an
> obsolete alias for a new variable `tooltip-max-size'? And add a way to
> specify the FRAME parameter somehow... but the calling convention for
> that function is kinda meh.
Before we do something like that, I'd like someone to explain why
would they need to call x-show-tip for showing a tooltip.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#20164: 25.0.50; Do not tell users that `x-show-tip' is internal
2019-08-02 14:20 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2019-08-02 18:03 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-08-02 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Lars Ingebrigtsen @ 2019-08-02 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: 20164
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> I agree that the calling conventions for `x-show-tip' seems to be much
>> nicer than `tooltip-show'.
>
> If you do, please explain it to me, because the above arguments don't
> convince me, certainly not that x-show-tip's API is "nicer". Maybe
> I'm missing something.
I think explicit parameters to a function is almost always to be
preferred to binding variables and then calling a function that takes no
parameters. In this case, you're supposed bind `tooltip-{x,y}-offset'
according to the doc string.
> No need for guessing; see the short discussion starting at
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-pretest-bug/2007-03/msg00261.html
>
> The conclusion to take out of that discussion is that whoever uses
> x-show-tip should know very well what they are doing, which is another
> way of saying "kids, don't try that at home", a.k.a. "an internal
> function".
Makes sense to me, and I'm closing this bug report.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#20164: 25.0.50; Do not tell users that `x-show-tip' is internal
2019-08-02 18:03 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
@ 2019-08-02 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2019-08-02 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen; +Cc: 20164
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Cc: drew.adams@oracle.com, 20164@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 20:03:54 +0200
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> >> I agree that the calling conventions for `x-show-tip' seems to be much
> >> nicer than `tooltip-show'.
> >
> > If you do, please explain it to me, because the above arguments don't
> > convince me, certainly not that x-show-tip's API is "nicer". Maybe
> > I'm missing something.
>
> I think explicit parameters to a function is almost always to be
> preferred to binding variables and then calling a function that takes no
> parameters. In this case, you're supposed bind `tooltip-{x,y}-offset'
> according to the doc string.
Only if you for some reason don't like the defaults. Which should
happen rarely, if ever.
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-pretest-bug/2007-03/msg00261.html
> >
> > The conclusion to take out of that discussion is that whoever uses
> > x-show-tip should know very well what they are doing, which is another
> > way of saying "kids, don't try that at home", a.k.a. "an internal
> > function".
>
> Makes sense to me, and I'm closing this bug report.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#20164: 25.0.50; Do not tell users that `x-show-tip' is internal
2019-08-02 12:28 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-08-02 14:20 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2019-08-02 15:38 ` Drew Adams
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Drew Adams @ 2019-08-02 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen; +Cc: 20164
> So perhaps the way forward here is to make `x-max-tooltip-size' an
> obsolete alias for a new variable `tooltip-max-size'? And add a way to
> specify the FRAME parameter somehow... but the calling convention for
> that function is kinda meh.
I guess you're asking others. If you're also
asking me then my answer is in the bug report.
To be specific:
1. Yes, rename `x-max-tooltip-size' as you suggest.
2. Don't make `x-show-tip' internal or tell users
it's internal.
3. Don't point users of `x-show-tip' to
`tooltip-show'. That's not at all the same
thing. Just rehabilitate `x-show-tip'.
4. If you want to rename all of the `x-*' stuff
to remove that prefix, fine by me (assuming
`x-*' aliases for backward compatibility).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-08-02 18:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-03-22 16:40 bug#20164: 25.0.50; Do not tell users that `x-show-tip' is internal Drew Adams
2019-08-02 12:28 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-08-02 14:20 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-08-02 18:03 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-08-02 18:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-08-02 15:38 ` Drew Adams
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.