From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Edebug corrupting point in buffers.
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 20:25:12 +0000
Message-ID: <Y2QjqIJXCm/UCnSP@ACM>
References: <Y2FWSoSCQnnY9en1@ACM> <83pme6bls8.fsf@gnu.org>
 <Y2JVzZNiWKx/W6KQ@ACM> <83mt99a223.fsf@gnu.org>
 <Y2KYUNWGkcKo9Ei9@ACM> <83cza59tvg.fsf@gnu.org>
 <Y2OmzWP/2rMmCvyB@ACM> <83wn8c6u96.fsf@gnu.org>
 <Y2QDVM1Rjv4tdIQS@ACM> <83bkpn7vmb.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214";
	logging-data="11240"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io"
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 03 21:26:14 2022
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17])
	by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1oqgmz-0002bc-Uj
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 21:26:13 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces@gnu.org>)
	id 1oqgmB-0003UU-MN; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 16:25:23 -0400
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <acm@muc.de>) id 1oqgm8-0003Tv-Dd
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 16:25:22 -0400
Original-Received: from mx3.muc.de ([193.149.48.5])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <acm@muc.de>) id 1oqgm6-0005QC-9F
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 16:25:20 -0400
Original-Received: (qmail 52298 invoked by uid 3782); 3 Nov 2022 21:25:14 +0100
Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15d9a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.93.154])
 (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP;
 Thu, 03 Nov 2022 21:25:14 +0100
Original-Received: (qmail 9495 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Nov 2022 20:25:12 -0000
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <83bkpn7vmb.fsf@gnu.org>
X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix)
X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.5; envelope-from=acm@muc.de;
 helo=mx3.muc.de
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_bar: -
X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" <emacs-devel-bounces@gnu.org>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:299101
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/299101>

Hello, Eli.

On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 20:15:08 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 18:07:16 +0000
> > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>

> > > The node you added is very short, barely a dozen lines.  It makes
> > > little sense to have it separate from where edebug-save-windows is
> > > described.  So I think you should move it there.  The location of the
> > > node inside the manual's hierarchy is much less important than to have
> > > the information pertaining to edebug-save-windows in a single place,
> > > because no one reads the ELisp reference manual in its entirety.  The
> > > only thing we need to facilitate people finding this place is add good
> > > index entries there.

> > So you're proposing leaving the "The outside context" node incomplete,
> > according to its clearly defined purpose, and therefore wrong?  Why?

> If you want, you can add a short sentence there about the issue, with
> a cross-reference to where the issue is described in full.

"There"?  There is no suitable place to put such a link, other than my
new node.  Such a strategy would unbalance "The Outside Context" by
having most of its contents in subsubsections, and the bit about point
corruption at the other end of a link, in some random page.

As a matter of interest, one of the other nodes under "The Outside
Context", namely "Checking Whether to Stop" has just 13 lines.

> This is how we organize our manuals: when some topic could be relevant
> to more than one situation, we describe it in full in one place, and
> have short references in all the others.

We should describe it in the PRIMARY relevant place.

> > Remember, this patch is not about edebug-save-windows.  It's about point
> > getting corrupted.

> The index entries and the cross-references should solve this.  And the
> issue _is_ related to edebug-save-windows ....

It is only tangentially related to edebug-save-windows.  It is about
point getting corrupted.  An angry victim of this bug should be be able
to find the description by searching for "corrupt".

> .... and to the other similar option described in the same node.  So
> having all of this info there makes the description more
> comprehensive.

Yes, stuff about options belongs in the "Options" page.  Stuff about
point getting corrupted does not, except at the other end of a link.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).