From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17779: 24.4.50; (elisp) `Using Interactive' Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 19:25:59 +0300 Message-ID: <83ftmfd1ew.fsf@gnu.org> References: <79a25ee9-e53e-494f-b7e3-ebd2e2eebafa@default> <87o9159k6k.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> <83r260dfbb.fsf@gnu.org> <87blx4dkp4.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="23595"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: 17779@debbugs.gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 05 18:27:09 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hufpF-000621-1t for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 18:27:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55880 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hufpE-0003AG-1M for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:27:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35572) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hufp9-0003A4-6y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:27:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hufp8-00013J-6Y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:27:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55170) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hufp8-00013F-3e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:27:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hufp7-00088v-Uv for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:27:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 16:27:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17779 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix Original-Received: via spool by 17779-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17779.156502238131251 (code B ref 17779); Mon, 05 Aug 2019 16:27:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17779) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Aug 2019 16:26:21 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35758 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hufoS-00087z-W2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:26:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51387) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hufoR-00087l-6w for 17779@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:26:19 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:36007) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hufoL-0000io-Rb; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:26:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4345 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hufoK-0002im-VJ; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:26:13 -0400 In-reply-to: <87blx4dkp4.fsf@mouse.gnus.org> (message from Lars Ingebrigtsen on Mon, 05 Aug 2019 11:29:27 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:164639 Archived-At: > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: drew.adams@oracle.com, 17779@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 11:29:27 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > It isn't an introduction, it's a full description of how to use > > 'interactive'. And I find nothing confusing about that part of the > > text, I think that single paragraph with 2 examples to illustrate the > > issue is quite appropriate here. > > I hadn't read that section before, and I just found it an odd thing to > talk about in that context -- as if there was something in particular > about code in the interactive spec that has to be extra careful about > buffer contents changing, when that's a general issue with points. Right, and that is exactly the point what the text tries to make. > > Please just leave this alone. I object in principle to making > > significant changes in the manuals based on hair-splitting arguments, > > not in the least because someone will always come back later and claim > > that the new text is worse, or less clear, or whatever. > > Emacs has great documentation, but it (as everything else) can be > improved. The argument you're making here seems to veer into the "well, > everything is subjective, so let's not even try" territory, which I know > you don't mean. Indeed I didn't mean anything even close, and I'm sorry it seemed to come across as something very different from my intent. I specifically mentioned "hair-splitting" and "minuscule" to make my intent clear, but I guess this wasn't enough. Our documentation does have places which need improvement -- places where the text is unclear or confusing or presents the subject in an order that is methodologically wrong, etc. This particular text is none of the above: it is very clear, describes real practical issues, presents them in an order which makes sense, and is quite short, even with the 2 examples and the surrounding small digression. So my point is that this is not one of the places where the manuals really do need improvement, it's a place where different people might have different opinions due to their personal preferences and experience. > While going through these doc clarification bug reports, I do close > the ones I don't think are not worth doing and only bring up the > ones I think could benefit from some consideration. I very much respect your opinions on those matters, and this case is a very rare situation where we happen to disagree. Thanks.