Emacs 25.1.50: Isn't 2nd line of "insert" function documentation wrong?

Emacs 25.1.50: Isn't 2nd line of "insert" function documentation wrong?

[Robert Weiner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 322 bytes --]

It reads: "Point and before-insertion markers move forward to end up
after the inserted text."


Shouldn't it be: "Point and after-insertion markers move forward to
end up after the inserted text."


This might be even better: "Point and markers with an insertion type
of t move forward to after the inserted text."


Bob

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1977 bytes --]

Re: Emacs 25.1.50: Isn't 2nd line of "insert" function documentation wrong?

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Robert Weiner <rswgnu@gmail.com> writes:

> It reads: "Point and before-insertion markers move forward to end up
> after the inserted text."
>
> Shouldn't it be: "Point and after-insertion markers move forward to
> end up after the inserted text."
>
> This might be even better: "Point and markers with an insertion type
> of t move forward to after the inserted text."

Uhm...  I think that sounds correct?  Anybody?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Re: Emacs 25.1.50: Isn't 2nd line of "insert" function documentation wrong?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 18:30:55 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> 
> Robert Weiner <rswgnu@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > It reads: "Point and before-insertion markers move forward to end up
> > after the inserted text."
> >
> > Shouldn't it be: "Point and after-insertion markers move forward to
> > end up after the inserted text."
> >
> > This might be even better: "Point and markers with an insertion type
> > of t move forward to after the inserted text."
> 
> Uhm...  I think that sounds correct?  Anybody?

The former wording, not the latter.

This doc bug is strange: the feature was coded from the get-go to move
the after-insertion markers after the inserted text, but the doc
string says the contrary.  So unlike Richard and those who helped him
back then.

Re: Emacs 25.1.50: Isn't 2nd line of "insert" function documentation wrong?

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> This doc bug is strange: the feature was coded from the get-go to move
> the after-insertion markers after the inserted text, but the doc
> string says the contrary.  So unlike Richard and those who helped him
> back then.

Yeah, and it's so weird that such a blatant doc error in such a basic
function has survived for 20 years that I thought I must be misreading
the code somehow.  :-)  But it's calling insert_1_both with
before_markers false, so the doc string really is wrong.  (Besides, it
wouldn't make sense if it was doing what it was documenting.)

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Re: Emacs 25.1.50: Isn't 2nd line of "insert" function documentation wrong?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Cc: rswgnu@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 18:47:17 +0200
> 
> it's calling insert_1_both with before_markers false, so the doc
> string really is wrong

It's more than that: this doc string was wrong even before the feature
that allows to move the before-insertion markers was introduced, when
the_only_ thing we could do was move only the after-insertion markers.

Strange...

Re: Emacs 25.1.50: Isn't 2nd line of "insert" function documentation wrong?

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Robert Weiner <rswgnu@gmail.com> writes:

> Shouldn't it be: "Point and after-insertion markers move forward to
> end up after the inserted text."

I've now fixed this in emacs-25.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no