From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: RE: `looking-back' strange warning Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <<560B9C7F.2060301@easy-emacs.de>> <<560CD7CE.4010404@yandex.ru> > <> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443742987 28152 80.91.229.3 (1 Oct 2015 23:43:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 23:43:07 +0000 (UTC) To: Barry Margolin , help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 02 01:42:55 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhnUz-0008R8-9H for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:42:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56668 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhnUy-0003bC-HD for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:42:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37509) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhnUn-0003b0-NY for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:42:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhnUi-0007n7-MP for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:42:41 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:23055) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhnUi-0007my-FT for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:42:36 -0400 Original-Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t91NgXHw027764 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 1 Oct 2015 23:42:33 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t91NgWZN011916 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 1 Oct 2015 23:42:32 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0001.oracle.com (abhmp0001.oracle.com [141.146.116.7]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t91NgBGm008995; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 23:42:31 GMT In-Reply-To: <> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:107443 Archived-At: > > > It's a feature: calling `looking-back' without LIMIT is slow, don't d= o > > > that. The compiler is telling you that. > > > > No, it is "warning" you that there are 2-3 "required" arguments, which > > is patently false. This is a product bug, IMO. Wrong message. > > > > Letting you know how to improve performance or avoid slow performance i= s > > helpful information, but it is not a "warning" - there is no danger > > here. And there is only one required argument. >=20 > The message specifically said "Warning:". How can you say it's not a > warning? 1. I said that it warns you. In its form it is clearly a warning. 2. IMHO, this kind of information should not be presented as a warning. There is no specific danger involved, such as possible loss of data or material. > You're right that the wording could be improved, maybe it should say > that this calling sequence is deprecated. Precisely. It can even say that use of the optional argument(s) is recommended. It can even say that this can improve performance. It can add any information it likes, including how it affects performance or what alternatives are available. But IMHO the message should not take the form of a warning. Or else it should actually warn of something. Currently it does not. At least as important is that it should not tell users that there are 2-3 required arguments. There is only 1 required argument. (It doesn't even make sense to talk about 2-3 required arguments. Required arguments are required. There is no choice of 2 or 3.) It's a poor message that apparently represents excessive zeal on the part of someone who discovered an anti-use case and wanted to give users some guidance about avoiding it. That would be fine (great!), but this is not the way to do that (IMHO).