bug#957: 23.0.60; No doc string for Dired functions

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> but I don't know what `dired-repeat-overlines' is...
>
> All the more reason for it to get a doc string!

I meant that I couldn't find it.  :-)  But grepping for
`dired-repeat-over-lines' found it for me.

It, too, is an internal function, and I don't think it's worth
documenting all these.  They are only useful if you're doing dired
development, and then you presumably have the sources and can look at
the comments.

> Sure they do, in general.  Since when do we document only commands?
>
> In the Dark Ages, doc strings were relatively more expensive (disk, memory,
> etc.), and some minor functions were handled with only a comment.  Nowadays
> there is rarely a good reason not to provide a doc string.

I agree, but adding doc strings to purely internal functions that are
presumably self-explanatory to people who need to use them to develop
isn't all that useful.

It's not that I'm against adding doc strings (if somebody feels like
doing that), but it's not, in my opinion worth the time.  So I'm closing
this report.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/