bug#8624: 24.0.50; `font-lock-default-fontify-buffer'

bug#8624: 24.0.50; `font-lock-default-fontify-buffer'

[Drew Adams]

This function is the default value of several important variables, all
of which are documented in (elisp) Other Font Lock Variables.  All this
doc does, in essence, is say "see `font-lock-default-fontify-buffer'".
 
But of course there is *NO* doc for `font-lock-default-fontify-buffer',
not even a doc string.  Please fix this.  Likewise
`font-lock-default-unfontify-buffer'.  It should be a no-brainer that
pretty much any function that has "default" as part of its name needs a
doc string.
 

In GNU Emacs 24.0.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2011-04-25 on 3249CTO
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (4.5) --no-opt --cflags
-Ic:/imagesupport/include'
 

bug#8624: 24.0.50; `font-lock-default-fontify-buffer'

[Drew Adams]

And obviously `font-lock-default-(un)fontify-region', etc.

bug#8624: 24.0.50; `font-lock-default-fontify-buffer'

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> This function is the default value of several important variables, all
> of which are documented in (elisp) Other Font Lock Variables.  All this
> doc does, in essence, is say "see `font-lock-default-fontify-buffer'".
>
> But of course there is *NO* doc for `font-lock-default-fontify-buffer',
> not even a doc string.  Please fix this.  Likewise
> `font-lock-default-unfontify-buffer'.  It should be a no-brainer that
> pretty much any function that has "default" as part of its name needs a
> doc string.

What would you imagine these doc strings would say?  "(un)fontify the
region according to the default font-lock rules; see the manual for
details"?

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

bug#8624: 24.0.50; `font-lock-default-fontify-buffer'

[Drew Adams]

> What would you imagine these doc strings would say?  "(un)fontify the
> region according to the default font-lock rules; see the manual for
> details"?

If that's what these functions do, then yes.  But only if the manual actually
explains things, i.e., provides the details.  And wrt putting such a sentence in
the manual (not just in the doc strings), it needs to cross-reference the
precise node or nodes where this is explained.

This should be a no-brainer, at least in terms of need if not in terms of the
explanations to add.  Today we in effect refer people to non-existent doc.  We
do not explain this today.

bug#8624: 24.0.50; `font-lock-default-fontify-buffer'

[Chong Yidong]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> This function is the default value of several important variables, all
> of which are documented in (elisp) Other Font Lock Variables.  All this
> doc does, in essence, is say "see `font-lock-default-fontify-buffer'".
>
> But of course there is *NO* doc for `font-lock-default-fontify-buffer',
> not even a doc string.  Please fix this.  Likewise
> `font-lock-default-unfontify-buffer'.  It should be a no-brainer that
> pretty much any function that has "default" as part of its name needs a
> doc string.

Sure; fixed.