From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Edebug corrupting point in buffers. Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2022 16:50:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83mt99a223.fsf@gnu.org> <83cza59tvg.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn8c6u96.fsf@gnu.org> <83bkpn7vmb.fsf@gnu.org> <834jvd4pbd.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="19704"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 05 17:51:17 2022 Return-path: 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 ) id 1orMO4-0004u0-Jg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 05 Nov 2022 17:51:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1orMNr-0001Rb-Rn; Sat, 05 Nov 2022 12:51:03 -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 ) id 1orMNp-0001RC-V0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Nov 2022 12:51:01 -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 ) id 1orMNk-0003yJ-3T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Nov 2022 12:51:01 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 65089 invoked by uid 3782); 5 Nov 2022 17:50:45 +0100 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe153f5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.83.245]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Nov 2022 17:50:44 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 6795 invoked by uid 1000); 5 Nov 2022 16:50:44 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <834jvd4pbd.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=unavailable 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." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:299220 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 13:24:06 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 20:25:12 +0000 > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > > > 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. > Instead of continuing this endless argument, I prefer to fix this > myself, using your text where appropriate. Are you okay with that? Yes, I think that would be best. Please do take account of my points about the "The Outside Context", and put the phrase "corrupted point" (or something like it) in somewhere. Thanks! -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).