From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#4718: 23.1; C-h f gives doc for the wrong function Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:32:19 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4A14BB04EC704AE8AC77727C8363945A@us.oracle.com> Reply-To: Juanma Barranquero , 4718@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1255492055 19659 80.91.229.12 (14 Oct 2009 03:47:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:47:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 4718@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 14 05:47:25 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Mxupf-0004QH-Md for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:47:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33927 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mxupe-0004a9-Ok for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:47:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Mxupb-0004Zm-0t for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:47:19 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MxupW-0004Z6-IB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:47:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60209 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MxupV-0004Yd-TJ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:47:13 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:56701) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MxupV-0003I3-8E for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:47:13 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n9E3lAm0012290; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:47:11 -0700 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n9E3e6Yf011134; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:40:06 -0700 Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:40:06 -0700 X-Loop: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com Resent-From: Juanma Barranquero Resent-To: bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs 2Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:40:06 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: followup 4718 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 4718-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B4718.125549116710289 (code B ref 4718); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:40:06 +0000 Original-Received: (at 4718) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 14 Oct 2009 03:32:47 +0000 X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.5 Bayes not run. spammytokens:Tokens not available. hammytokens:Tokens not available. Original-Received: from mail-fx0-f207.google.com (mail-fx0-f207.google.com [209.85.220.207]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n9E3WjVx010286 for <4718@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:32:46 -0700 Original-Received: by fxm3 with SMTP id 3so9432754fxm.44 for <4718@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:32:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=rFoElv3PAEk1d4y8jYr3urYCC63Fis8OC307MdFwARc=; b=u33EzkRLyx80HgOsiGrSK6lNn6+ueARUH/SPS4FEpnNF/H9fXT+freagBH5nh1C4Ad 4rFw92SilyBh+k2k4crN1XLWenStPG6iOhLoqZdnf0QgP12hmfPw2y3+f8CDu3xRSPxg aNvHAvOD11ulDUjov4IKql7yqgxEBXl9e1eg0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=coRkq19JvCv9wU+2ax3xKkbdIbI7vrd7S8yNtaxoE/T1uentchVd00V/E4fQCJyRE8 QB/amG1a4ufgjcvKwzOyah6EVbQy4dFBIdrw9BaYPmkTsS25lb1BUfP7bXiI8WVDjEiK tsAKaVCkW85mm3SB5YRRkvxPwayWdbTuz+aVg= Original-Received: by 10.239.182.158 with SMTP id q30mr594507hbg.23.1255491159148; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:32:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A14BB04EC704AE8AC77727C8363945A@us.oracle.com> X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:47:18 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:31903 Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 03:49, Drew Adams wrote: > I entered one entire function name. Emacs didn't complain that there was no such > function. In your example, you didn't even load dired, so I was trying to understand what you did. > Emacs instead silently gave me the doc for a different function. > That's totally inappropriate. > > When I hit RET, Emacs should say `No match' and not accept my erroneous input, > as it used to do in Emacs 22 and before. Stefan already has answered that: emacs 22 did in some cases, too. > Imagine if you paste a complete URL in your browser and you get a totally > different Web site from what you request, the browser thinking that it is being > helpful because it notices some similarity between your URL and another that it > knew about. Irrelevant. URL completion in most browsers is not similar to Emacs completion. > Can you imagine your Web experience in that case? Imagine if your browser does > that each time you click a broken link: "helpfully" transforming the bad URL > into a different one that "works" - but that corresponds to an unrelated Web > site. Navigating to an unexpected URL could have security implications; not so for symbol completion (at least, in most cases). > Emacs has always allowed you, in some contexts (but not in others), to hit RET > to both complete and enter the completed text. But that becomes less appropriate > when the completion is not obvious from the input text (as is the case for > partial completion). > > It's particularly problematic if the user's intention is that what s?he entered > be considered already complete. And we cannot know that intention for sure; we > can only suppose it because s?he chose to use RET, not TAB. You're saying that you would rather it didn't work for `dolis' either, then. You prefer to be asked. Fine. Personally, I kinda like the way it works now. Certainly does not strike me as user-unfriendly. Juanma