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#34749: 26.1; `delete-windows-on': (1) doc, (2) bug, (3) bug, (4) candidates Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 12:29:22 +0200 Message-ID: <83mum5accd.fsf@gnu.org> References: <5C7E4BAB.3050508@gmx.at> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="139612"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: 34749@debbugs.gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 08 11:30:23 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 1h2Clj-000aDa-H6 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 11:30:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40618 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2Cli-0005gj-GT for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 05:30:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54938) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2ClU-0005dm-6h for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 05:30:13 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2ClR-0001DR-T4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 05:30:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:50558) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2ClR-0001C2-Ka for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 05:30:05 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2ClR-0006nL-Be for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 05:30:05 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 10:30:05 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34749 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 34749-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B34749.155204099126056 (code B ref 34749); Fri, 08 Mar 2019 10:30:05 +0000 Original-Received: (at 34749) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Mar 2019 10:29:51 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35869 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2ClC-0006mC-P9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 05:29:51 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40473) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2ClB-0006ly-7X for 34749@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 05:29:49 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:54250) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2Cl4-0000mg-Qk; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 05:29:43 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1739 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1h2Ckz-00018W-UA; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 05:29:39 -0500 In-reply-to: <5C7E4BAB.3050508@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Tue, 05 Mar 2019 11:12:59 +0100) 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:156141 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 11:12:59 +0100 > From: martin rudalics > > > It seems like the interactive behavior is not correct, as well as being > > poorly documented. It's hard to know just what behavior was intended, > > or what behavior would be best if (as it seems) we still need to design > > this. > > If anyone has any ideas, we should implement that. Suggestions highly > welcome. I don't understand what you are asking about. It sounds like Drew has pointed out some inconsistencies between the doc string and the actual behavior, and we should first fix those inconsistencies for the release branch, probably by fixing the doc string. Why is Emacs behaving unlike the doc string says?