[F.J.Wright@qmul.ac.uk: Re: Function documentation]

[F.J.Wright@qmul.ac.uk: Re: Function documentation]

[Richard Stallman]

Can someone check if the DOC file is being built properly on Windows
in the RC branch?  He seems to be saying that it fails to scan the .c
files.

------- Start of forwarded message -------
From: "Dr Francis J. Wright" <F.J.Wright@qmul.ac.uk>
To: <rms@gnu.org>, "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Cc: <emacs-pretesters@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Function documentation
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 16:10:07 -0000
Organization: Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary, University of London
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0
	tests=INVALID_MSGID,NOSPAM_INC,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
	      SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT_OE
	version=2.41
X-Spam-Level: 

From: "Richard Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
To: <F.J.Wright@qmul.ac.uk>
Cc: <emacs-pretesters@gnu.org>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: Function documentation


>     The problem with Emacs 21.2.92.1 that I reported for on 11 November is
still
>     there, e.g.
>
>     backward-char is an interactive built-in function.
>     not documented
>
> This failure does not occur for me.  Can anyone else
> reproduce it and then investigate it?
>
> Could you see if the DOC file has reasonable contents for backward-char?

As far as I can see it does not.  I suspect that this problem is specific to
the Windows port and/or Andrew's binary release and affects all built-in
functions, which is why the DOC file is so much smaller than it was in
21.2.90.1.  Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to download and build
from source.


From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
To: <rms@gnu.org>
Cc: <F.J.Wright@qmul.ac.uk>; <emacs-pretesters@gnu.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: Function documentation

> I seem to recall that there was a Windows-specific problem that caused
> similar failures.  Perhaps that problem is back, or was never solved?

I recall a similar problem quite a long time ago, although I think that
related to a more specific set of compiled functions and it was fixed (I
think by you, Eli).  The current problem arose only with the 21.2.92.1
pretest; the 21.2 release and the 21.2.91.1 pretest were OK.

Francis
------- End of forwarded message -------