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: Thu, 23 May 2019 21:31:45 +0300 Message-ID: <83tvdl58fi.fsf@gnu.org> References: <874l6ll9hh.fsf@web.de> <83h8alxnvw.fsf@gnu.org> <877ebf6eaj.fsf@web.de> <835zqzx2bb.fsf@gnu.org> <87a7fe2h4q.fsf@web.de> <83blzt7pcb.fsf@gnu.org> <87r28p1577.fsf@web.de> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="90698"; 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 Thu May 23 20:32:15 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 1hTsVi-000NQK-MR for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 20:32:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41687 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hTsVh-00089H-Nu for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 14:32:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:38926) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hTsVb-00085L-9U for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 14:32:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hTsVX-0002PN-OO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 14:32:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:59931) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hTsVW-0002On-Ly for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 14:32:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hTsVW-0002v3-F8 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 14:32:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 18:32:02 +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=B35433.155863630611195 (code B ref 35433); Thu, 23 May 2019 18:32:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 35433) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 May 2019 18:31:46 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45242 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hTsVF-0002uV-Io for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 14:31:45 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52660) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hTsVB-0002uG-Uq for 35433@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 23 May 2019 14:31:43 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:38612) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hTsV6-00026A-Pf; Thu, 23 May 2019 14:31:36 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2750 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hTsV6-0003fb-7I; Thu, 23 May 2019 14:31:36 -0400 In-reply-to: <87r28p1577.fsf@web.de> (message from Michael Heerdegen on Thu, 23 May 2019 18:55:08 +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:159686 Archived-At: > From: Michael Heerdegen > Cc: 35433@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 18:55:08 +0200 > > > I'd say "... will warn if that function is not defined, which means > > it might not be known at run time" instead. > > No, these are two different cases: (1) function not known when > compiling, and (2) known to the compiler but function may still be > unknown when the compiled code is run, because the compiled file misses > `require' statements, for example. Then replace "which means it" with "or". > > "Undefined" and "unknown" sound vague and more ominous to me. > > Well, I tried to reuse the words from the actual compiler warnings - see > `byte-compile-warn-about-unresolved-functions'. The warnings there say "the function `%s' might not be defined at runtime." "the function `%s' is not known to be defined." They don't say "undefined" and "unknown". > I may change "may be unknown" to "may not be known" - unless you > have a better idea: > > +When @var{function-object} is a symbol and the code is byte compiled, > +the byte-compiler will warn should that function be undefined or may > +not be known at run-time. The phrase "should that function be ..." is usually interpreted as something that may or may happen in the future, which AFAIU is not what you mean. That's why I proposed a different wording, which doesn't have that problem. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your intent.