From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#8659: 24.0.50; doc string of comment-end-skip Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 00:08:30 -0300 Message-ID: References: <0BCD0B03FE4C4CC298EFAF1FF810E140@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1305169752 1592 80.91.229.12 (12 May 2011 03:09:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 03:09:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 8659@debbugs.gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 12 05:09:08 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QKMGx-0007wq-6Y for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 12 May 2011 05:09:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44759 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QKMGw-0002bw-Mj for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 May 2011 23:09:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:60473) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QKMGt-0002bf-Ny for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 11 May 2011 23:09:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QKMGs-00038U-Jm for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 11 May 2011 23:09:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:48227) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QKMGs-00038Q-Fb for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 11 May 2011 23:09:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QKMGs-0003Q1-42; Wed, 11 May 2011 23:09:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 03:09:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 8659 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 8659-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B8659.130516972013114 (code B ref 8659); Thu, 12 May 2011 03:09:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 8659) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 May 2011 03:08:40 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QKMGV-0003PR-NC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 11 May 2011 23:08:40 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QKMGT-0003P6-S8 for 8659@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 11 May 2011 23:08:38 -0400 Original-Received: from 121-249-126-200.fibertel.com.ar ([200.126.249.121]:17644 helo=ceviche.home) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QKMGO-0002o7-A1; Wed, 11 May 2011 23:08:32 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 6907666152; Thu, 12 May 2011 00:08:30 -0300 (ART) In-Reply-To: <0BCD0B03FE4C4CC298EFAF1FF810E140@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Wed, 11 May 2011 16:49:56 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 23:09:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:46409 Archived-At: > The latter seems wrong. End of a comment up to the comment's body? Is > it "up to" that is wrong/odd ("back to"), or is the comment's body not > the text that is commented out? The intended meaning is "back to", but my English skills aren't good enough to write it correctly at the same time as concisely. Stefan