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#35433: 27.0.50; 'function' docstring: tell more about advantages? Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 09:48:51 +0300 Message-ID: <83h8alxnvw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <874l6ll9hh.fsf@web.de> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="52631"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: 35433@debbugs.gnu.org To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 26 08:50:17 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 (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hJugb-000DZo-4l for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 08:50:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40543 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hJuga-0003ks-33 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 02:50:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43693) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hJugO-0003iT-Uw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 02:50:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hJugN-00038K-EN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 02:50:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:46305) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hJugM-00035J-L8 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 02:50:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hJugM-00074R-IL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 02:50:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 06:50:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 35433 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 35433-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B35433.155626135727114 (code B ref 35433); Fri, 26 Apr 2019 06:50:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 35433) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Apr 2019 06:49:17 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59847 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hJufc-00073G-Rl for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 02:49:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57409) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hJufZ-000732-UU for 35433@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 02:49:14 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:35311) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hJufU-0007DM-IV; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 02:49:08 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1041 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hJufT-0003P2-N9; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 02:49:08 -0400 In-reply-to: <874l6ll9hh.fsf@web.de> (message from Michael Heerdegen on Fri, 26 Apr 2019 05:40:42 +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:158269 Archived-At: > From: Michael Heerdegen > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 05:40:42 +0200 > > I wonder if we should add to the docstring of `function' that when the > argument is a symbol, several checks are performed: it is checked > whether the function will be defined at run-time and whether the > function is obsolete, for example. > > The current docstring doesn't suggest that function-quoting symbols has > any advantages, but these warnings are also useful for users' init > files, people that are not always informed what "argument is byte > compiled" implies. I think these details belong first and foremost to the ELisp manual. We could also add a shortened version to the doc string, but I'd like first to see the full version in the manual. Thanks.