From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 14:24:59 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> <77b23825-05cb-1f30-ebee-4b70dbfa986c@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="iLlG7d74M1x9G1nMwK4j0jw0kkhWXatc8" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1472927189 16806 195.159.176.226 (3 Sep 2016 18:26:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:26:29 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 To: Drew Adams , 24353@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 03 20:26:17 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFdv-00033g-Pj for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 20:26:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47383 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFds-0002m0-Is for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:26:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37035) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFdm-0002lt-V4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:26:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFdi-0007ZJ-Mh for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:26:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:51209) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFdi-0007ZB-J3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:26:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFdi-0000Ay-2E for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:26:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 18:26:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 24353 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix notabug Original-Received: via spool by 24353-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B24353.1472927119614 (code B ref 24353); Sat, 03 Sep 2016 18:26:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 18:25:19 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48921 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFd1-00009p-97 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:25:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.135]:55524) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFcz-00009a-AK for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:25:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [18.189.118.169] ([18.189.118.169]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MKyqu-1bgFcp12bA-0001Lu; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 20:25:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:N2GN5zSa7tPcGabH9jGsSjv/htMSknWjDyilUxDdf/h/J0yGHeL qvG4QJh9gMRE/giJ3uIuj6JDKYifiE0qLhy0F19a5hRdLS5OWbKEepD6wMCvbBmjqleIExV qiJ8orvSvF24HM6uKIxxG9o3/oSCy3POyjJbiZR2dNsk0BkfMw0B9q7R8Fksc0BPb18Xke0 gLqbR3KZEtY3dpnwrOrCg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:okIlxMXIRO4=:uZDRuf+O8PbOfCUarIHLd5 Hi2tIeYDuVHPONbHF/zjA/Hblh6r+ZuEyRfXRFrFkY+9AZe6MPF+Qua0AG+Dfu1q5c9X5hd+F GqmpjX+fRATKScaEahvf8zVJ4ORzsh/YHWFz8Ihz+sYW1eH7Cw9wu+Ln54lu2DdEO8BE9Sfw2 8InGSl3ow6bI2BvHL/LimddbFPGZRTykVMFXOxPJudQicOZtQ9gdev88hm9aWNuuP5iqfb54j EuumFf82XxTm9FbzDuc0Jx4nmfDwxRKvznSu4rBBgcvDMb0NXL+VhUNOyalEfuqi4/8mNed8t XuAHYeIun7x9f/wbWrwuVL2RIbsiH4yU+x68Lml2UkjOvaM1jhyWGm62coUIuzobWZrovv78o GzuFtgwIp+lEJIjlfrkx8pguDCFi+FxoJMN6UVpIvptzW5nn5AmCRdaUS2PIJdI//kSVheeuv b51rx+suyQ3ba7LunED2dFEbeoweYMEXAZiYdcnPdzVeOCjicrvenkai3pgdGGzhWWLt/yKzf EAD5/EYCc2yGyTihKtDLI1OuBGskJHrTe8EZCQD0gTJ0Dx/xUmBZl0X9KYV2CsuET3r+YihWD AbKs+btlOMZlQdHgw4tubmuZqkunKJ4tRzBmQGrEOuAwSRjHEOHXcD5EUsU6hTh4+oK8W/bU+ LPbQRdLjX64LZjJCGq7f9c7raA0+Ltrwo4ZGAI+KIyFWucwYmhb7Y4wDT/BEHZP99dXE= X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:122898 Archived-At: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --iLlG7d74M1x9G1nMwK4j0jw0kkhWXatc8 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="UdnwHX0PDirkUJL00ubDiewLLFvU70Mq0"; protected-headers="v1" From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit--Claudel?= To: Drew Adams , 24353@debbugs.gnu.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> <77b23825-05cb-1f30-ebee-4b70dbfa986c@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: --UdnwHX0PDirkUJL00ubDiewLLFvU70Mq0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2016-09-03 14:10, Drew Adams wrote: > When you first wrote your code, presumably you consulted > the doc string. The problem, if you did read the doc, > is that the "general recommendation" there, at the very > end, SAYS NOTHING about LIMIT. Maybe? Or maybe I knew looking-at and used eldoc to get the signature. I = can't recall. > =E2=80=A6 > NOTHING HAS CHANGED in this function, apart from a minor > doc change and addition of `advertised-calling-convention'. Right. And the addition of the advertised-calling-convention caused me, = and perhaps others, to revisit existing code that did not include a limit= =2E So it was a neat addition, since the misleading doc string, or my own car= elessness, caused me to make mistakes in the past. Fortunately, these mis= takes are now fixed, because I got byte-compilation warnings. Very conve= nient. Of course, upgrading the docstring could still be a good idea; but I don'= t make the mistake anymore, since when I write new calls to this function= eldoc asks me to add the LIMIT argument, so mostly don't care about that= update. Cl=C3=A9ment. --UdnwHX0PDirkUJL00ubDiewLLFvU70Mq0-- --iLlG7d74M1x9G1nMwK4j0jw0kkhWXatc8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXyxV8AAoJEPqg+cTm90wjM5UQALF+HLs7pWt0FsEt8SsB1wDp ej5iItD8X/uzdz8Yf8x6BY99zBFgqCUpssbzSqBPTU1FDQ4KK2F4P/xvBeQtZpuf g/nZGtwZ5LlQIyNcTLD5+nMtUyz83Y5izPsmX8nX92MYnR3AALhUy2imTDAXC2on jDEnYW6Y26DgHkurQXBml5kqbeeUDXdBo5YMVe+cPz0NsPMQiWDkYDCMvBGR8u62 YXE/r73qvmjTI32RkW0RpwyB/fdkjvcm10B5HTk+UH7cKMCKec1xKDrQIzEHZ5b1 Rlj2EUFS0ho6rA/lBcnTpZLYpnKfggyjq64W61+7wHtubZQjaflP3VbGEi8bbYPo VuXyRb6nUzQ7S7pqSuLPuGXU0CwUr0nPzz3lqU0HYSIakxqZhNwfUhaQGtJkdLrv hwponaqcKBY4BlRZCRXn7uK+kaJmHwDrS8dtFS3Zmz9ClnWiZwwQjpY8xnF+nk8i XM8Q3xEF1DtT2v9+yeUi781jmr1njnpdHMkDMjTI+0LklzQ2B1But347TtOgqtHx 79psIuQXBxk2VqJ6w3Pl201xhGjp1Ml6hGxYWKloL7cz+SniFZ/xROwpQfL+3Wyw DT6/8FTc0b9t2SLZfekC7ER/jNJ18Hz3dOJfD5BavES66qaJ07ncxt8H0qU9TtTc as5FO2uTDc5CEDJtAyB2 =PLWB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --iLlG7d74M1x9G1nMwK4j0jw0kkhWXatc8--