From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: debugging.texi Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 19:16:21 -0400 Message-ID: References: <200506092236.j59MaQf01709@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200506110330.j5B3UrX05905@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <87slzpuz95.fsf@xs4all.nl> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1118533233 26620 80.91.229.2 (11 Jun 2005 23:40:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:40:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: teirllm@dms.auburn.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 12 01:40:27 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DhFaQ-0005xR-3N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2005 01:40:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DhFet-0006gG-JA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 19:44:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DhFai-000529-4l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 19:40:40 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DhFah-00051f-7A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 19:40:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DhFZX-0004JO-OC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 19:39:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DhFEE-0007zY-PH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 19:17:26 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1DhFDB-0006pi-Fm; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 19:16:21 -0400 Original-To: Lute Kamstra In-reply-to: <87slzpuz95.fsf@xs4all.nl> (message from Lute Kamstra on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:30:14 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:38605 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:38605 I think the empty string argument is a kludge. Maybe we should just not document it and tell people to use a symbol or nil from lisp and the name of the function or no name (i.e., the empty string) interactively. I agree. It is a mistake to try to document every detail of the behavior. We only document what we really want users to use. ! ! If specified, @var{function-name} should normally be a symbol with a ! function definition or @code{nil}, but, for internal technical ! reasons, an empty string can be used as a substitute for @code{nil}. ! ! If @var{function-name} is a non-@code{nil} symbol with a function ! definition, this command returns @var{function-name}, even if ! @var{function-name} was not previously set up to break on entry. If ! @var{function-name} is omitted, @code{nil}, or an empty string, it ! returns a list of all functions for which break-on-entry was canceled. There's no need to mention all those details.