From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#24353: 25.1.1: looking-back wrong info Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 11:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <83lgzael08.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2euehyc.fsf@gnu.org> <1a485a01-87cd-db03-4a0b-2e9033754c46@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1472928203 7661 195.159.176.226 (3 Sep 2016 18:43:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:43:23 +0000 (UTC) To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel , 24353@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 03 20:43:19 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 1bgFuM-0000yg-DQ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 20:43:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47415 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFuK-00070t-7I for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:43:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38750) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFuE-00070M-LE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:43:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFu9-0001cS-Oz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:43:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:51225) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFu9-0001cO-Ld for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:43:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFu9-0000bF-Gk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:43:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 18:43:01 +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=B24353.14729281422257 (code B ref 24353); Sat, 03 Sep 2016 18:43:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 24353) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Sep 2016 18:42:22 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48937 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFtW-0000aL-EE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:42:22 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:25113) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bgFtU-0000a6-0u for 24353@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:42:21 -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 u83IgDMN008701 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:42:13 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u83IgCrA031388 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:42:13 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0010.oracle.com (abhmp0010.oracle.com [141.146.116.16]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u83IgCKX006502; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 18:42:12 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71] 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:122902 Archived-At: > > Anyone getting super serious about the function, and interested > > beyond the doc string, will look at the code, and will conclude > > that the signature in the doc string must by a typo (erroneous). > > And erroneous it is. >=20 > I don't think so. Looking at the code, I see: > (declare > (advertised-calling-convention (regexp limit &optional greedy) "25.1")= ) > How would you conclude that this is a typo?! Read the initial bug report. Andreas certainly knew about the advertised calling convention. He reported that the doc shows an incorrect calling convention, which it does. The doc string communicates an incorrect signature. (That's the point of `advertised-calling-convention'.) If you look in the code you discover why (as you just did). From the code you can see _that_ the doc shows an incorrect signature (it is not the real signature), and you can see _why_ it does so (because of `advertised-calling-convention'). It's a judgment call _whether_ we should show the wrong signature for `looking-back'. I think no; you think yes. But the _fact_ that it does not correspond to the real signature is indisputable. As Eli pointed out, there are only 28 occurrences of `advertised-calling-convention' in all of Emacs. It is something used very sparingly - precisely because it misleads (intentionally). The question is whether the doc of _this_ function should mislead about the signature. Should this function's doc tell the truth AND offer specific guidance about the performance implications of LIMIT? Or should it lie about the signature and offer NO guidance about LIMIT? That's the question raised by this bug report. (Yes, the byte-compiler offers some guidance now, but it is limited - just don't-do-it, not why. But the doc offers none.)