From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8659: 24.0.50; doc string of comment-end-skip Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 19:08:00 -0400 Message-ID: <87lixqxw33.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <0BCD0B03FE4C4CC298EFAF1FF810E140@us.oracle.com> <409A855E6F124F779E5646CD28EF8ABE@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1306624152 8846 80.91.229.12 (28 May 2011 23:09:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 23:09:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 8659@debbugs.gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun May 29 01:09:08 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QQSd1-0004zo-Rq for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 May 2011 01:09:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52764 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQSd1-0002GL-BT for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 28 May 2011 19:09:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:37783) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQScx-0002Fd-O4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 28 May 2011 19:09:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQScw-0005sf-IG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 28 May 2011 19:09:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:36223) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QQScw-0005sa-7U for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 28 May 2011 19:09:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QQScv-0001p8-WC; Sat, 28 May 2011 19:09:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Chong Yidong Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 23:09:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8659 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8659-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8659.13066240896940 (code B ref 8659); Sat, 28 May 2011 23:09:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8659) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 May 2011 23:08:09 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QQSc5-0001ns-Bo for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 May 2011 19:08:09 -0400 Original-Received: from vm-emlprdomr-03.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.144]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QQSc3-0001ng-MR for 8659@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 May 2011 19:08:08 -0400 Original-Received: from furball (c-71-192-165-84.hsd1.ct.comcast.net [71.192.165.84]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-03.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4SN816B024686 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 28 May 2011 19:08:01 -0400 Original-Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7538C16031F; Sat, 28 May 2011 19:08:00 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <409A855E6F124F779E5646CD28EF8ABE@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Thu, 12 May 2011 06:45:57 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.144 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 19:09:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:46768 Archived-At: "Drew Adams" writes: >> > The latter seems wrong. End of a comment up to the >> > comment's body? Is it "up to" that is wrong/odd >> > ("back to"), or is the comment's body not >> > the text that is commented out? >> >> The intended meaning is "back to", but my English skills aren't good >> enough to write it correctly at the same time as concisely. > > Then let's use "back to" or similar, to indicate the direction more clearly. "Back to" is fine; committed, and thanks.