GNU bug report logs - #16074
24.3.50; enhancement request: Remove "pop" from command names & doc for `C-(u|x) C-SPC'

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 16074 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 16074 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 24.3.50; enhancement request: Remove "pop" from command names & doc
 for `C-(u|x) C-SPC'
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 07:46:16 -0800 (PST)

See http://stackoverflow.com/a/20427244/729907.

The names and doc of the commands bound to `C-u C-SPC' and `C-x C-SPC'
are misleading, in that the commands do not really "pop" the marker
rings. They cycle the rings.  Markers are not removed from the rings
by such "popping".

Emacs uses the verb "cycle" for this kind of behavior elsewhere.  The
same terminology should be used here also.  We should rename
`pop-global-mark' and rephrase the doc.

In GNU Emacs 24.3.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
 of 2013-12-05 on ODIEONE
Bzr revision: 115389 monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca-20131205202554-1az0dm7bdk303bgw
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --prefix=/c/Devel/emacs/binary --enable-checking=yes,glyphs
 'CFLAGS=-O0 -g3' CPPFLAGS=-Ic:/Devel/emacs/include
 LDFLAGS=-Lc:/Devel/emacs/lib'

Message #8 received at 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16074: 24.3.50;
 enhancement request: Remove "pop" from command names & doc for
 `C-(u|x) C-SPC'
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:47:45 +0200

Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:

> See http://stackoverflow.com/a/20427244/729907.
>
> The names and doc of the commands bound to `C-u C-SPC' and `C-x C-SPC'
> are misleading, in that the commands do not really "pop" the marker
> rings. They cycle the rings.  Markers are not removed from the rings
> by such "popping".
>
> Emacs uses the verb "cycle" for this kind of behavior elsewhere.  The
> same terminology should be used here also.  We should rename
> `pop-global-mark' and rephrase the doc.

Heh.  I didn't even know that they didn't pop, after all these years.

Yes, renaming here seems like a good idea.

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

Message #11 received at 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#16074: 24.3.50; enhancement request: Remove "pop" from
 command names & doc for `C-(u|x) C-SPC'
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 07:40:37 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:
>
>> See http://stackoverflow.com/a/20427244/729907.
>>
>> The names and doc of the commands bound to `C-u C-SPC' and `C-x C-SPC'
>> are misleading, in that the commands do not really "pop" the marker
>> rings. They cycle the rings.  Markers are not removed from the rings
>> by such "popping".
>>
>> Emacs uses the verb "cycle" for this kind of behavior elsewhere.  The
>> same terminology should be used here also.  We should rename
>> `pop-global-mark' and rephrase the doc.
>
> Heh.  I didn't even know that they didn't pop, after all these years.
>
> Yes, renaming here seems like a good idea.

How about the attached patch?

Thanks,
Stefan Kangas

[0001-Rename-pop-global-mark-to-cycle-global-mark.patch (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Message #14 received at 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16074: 24.3.50;
 enhancement request: Remove "pop" from command names & doc for
 `C-(u|x) C-SPC'
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 09:28:50 +0300

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 07:40:37 +0200
> Cc: 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> >> The names and doc of the commands bound to `C-u C-SPC' and `C-x C-SPC'
> >> are misleading, in that the commands do not really "pop" the marker
> >> rings. They cycle the rings.  Markers are not removed from the rings
> >> by such "popping".
> >>
> >> Emacs uses the verb "cycle" for this kind of behavior elsewhere.  The
> >> same terminology should be used here also.  We should rename
> >> `pop-global-mark' and rephrase the doc.
> >
> > Heh.  I didn't even know that they didn't pop, after all these years.
> >
> > Yes, renaming here seems like a good idea.
> 
> How about the attached patch?

IMO, doing this is a waste of time, energy, VC resources and whatnot.

Just one opinion.

Message #17 received at 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>, Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#16074: 24.3.50; enhancement request: Remove "pop" from
 command names & doc for `C-(u|x) C-SPC'
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 07:20:16 -0700 (PDT)

> >> The names and doc of the commands bound to `C-u C-SPC' and `C-x C-
> >> SPC' are misleading, in that the commands do not really "pop" the 
> >> marker rings. They cycle the rings.  Markers are not removed from
> >> the rings by such "popping".
> >>
> >> Emacs uses the verb "cycle" for this kind of behavior elsewhere.
> >> The same terminology should be used here also.  We should rename
> >> `pop-global-mark' and rephrase the doc.
> >
> > Yes, renaming here seems like a good idea.
> 
> How about the attached patch?

Maybe I missed something when perusing the patch,
but it looks like it addresses only the global
mark ring (`C-x C-SPC'), not also the (local)
mark ring (`C-u C-SPC').

The enhancement request is about both.  The doc
for both speaks of "pop" instead of cycle.

Message #20 received at 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#16074: 24.3.50; enhancement request: Remove "pop" from
 command names & doc for `C-(u|x) C-SPC'
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 07:22:01 -0700 (PDT)

> IMO, doing this is a waste of time, energy, VC resources and whatnot.

It helps users.  Whether in this case that help
is worth the necessary time, energy, VC resources
and your whatnot is up to you.

Message #23 received at 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#16074: 24.3.50; enhancement request: Remove "pop" from
 command names & doc for `C-(u|x) C-SPC'
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 07:48:16 +0200

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

>> Heh.  I didn't even know that they didn't pop, after all these years.
>>
>> Yes, renaming here seems like a good idea.
>
> How about the attached patch?

I think that looks like the correct solution.

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

Message #26 received at 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#16074: 24.3.50; enhancement request: Remove "pop" from
 command names & doc for `C-(u|x) C-SPC'
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 09:14:55 -0700 (PDT)

> >> Yes, renaming here seems like a good idea.
> >
> > How about the attached patch?
> 
> I think that looks like the correct solution.

It doesn't address the problem for the `mark-ring',
does it?  My impression was that it addresses it
only for `global-mark-ring'.  The local `mark-ring'
is used much more often than the `global-mark-ring',
and its doc is probably accessed much more often.

For example -

This part of `C-h k C-SPC' is wrong:

 With prefix argument (e.g., C-u C-SPC), jump to the mark,
 and set the mark from position popped off the local mark
                                ^^^^^^^^^^
 ring (this does not affect the global mark ring).
 ...

 If 'set-mark-command-repeat-pop' is non-nil, repeating
 the C-SPC command with no prefix argument pops the next
 position off the local (or global) mark ring and jumps there.

 With C-u C-u as prefix argument, unconditionally set
 mark where point is, even if 'set-mark-command-repeat-pop'
 is non-nil.

And the doc & name of option `set-mark-command-repeat-pop'
are wrong (plus, the line lengths are screwy):

 Non-nil means repeating C-SPC after popping mark
 pops it again.
 That means that C-u C-SPC C-SPC
 will pop the mark twice, and
 C-u C-SPC C-SPC C-SPC
 will pop the mark three times.

And the doc & name of function `pop-to-mark-command'
are wrong:

 Jump to mark, and pop a new position for mark off the ring.

A position is NOT popped off the ring.  That's what's
wrong with all of these.  Likewise, the doc in the
manuals.

The enhancement request is to fix this wrong
terminology wrt BOTH `global-mark-ring' and
`mark-ring'.

Message #29 received at 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>,
 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#16074: 24.3.50; enhancement request: Remove "pop" from
 command names & doc for `C-(u|x) C-SPC'
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 23:09:45 +0300

>> >> Yes, renaming here seems like a good idea.
>> >
>> > How about the attached patch?
>>
>> I think that looks like the correct solution.
>
> It doesn't address the problem for the `mark-ring',
> does it?  My impression was that it addresses it
> only for `global-mark-ring'.  The local `mark-ring'
> is used much more often than the `global-mark-ring',
> and its doc is probably accessed much more often.
>
> For example -
>
> This part of `C-h k C-SPC' is wrong:
>
>  With prefix argument (e.g., C-u C-SPC), jump to the mark,
>  and set the mark from position popped off the local mark
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
>  ring (this does not affect the global mark ring).
>  ...
>
>  If 'set-mark-command-repeat-pop' is non-nil, repeating
>  the C-SPC command with no prefix argument pops the next
>  position off the local (or global) mark ring and jumps there.
>
>  With C-u C-u as prefix argument, unconditionally set
>  mark where point is, even if 'set-mark-command-repeat-pop'
>  is non-nil.
>
> And the doc & name of option `set-mark-command-repeat-pop'
> are wrong (plus, the line lengths are screwy):
>
>  Non-nil means repeating C-SPC after popping mark
>  pops it again.
>  That means that C-u C-SPC C-SPC
>  will pop the mark twice, and
>  C-u C-SPC C-SPC C-SPC
>  will pop the mark three times.
>
> And the doc & name of function `pop-to-mark-command'
> are wrong:
>
>  Jump to mark, and pop a new position for mark off the ring.
>
> A position is NOT popped off the ring.  That's what's
> wrong with all of these.  Likewise, the doc in the
> manuals.
>
> The enhancement request is to fix this wrong
> terminology wrt BOTH `global-mark-ring' and
> `mark-ring'.

And `yank' doesn't yank, and `kill' doesn't kill literally.
What is the most important is that docstrings should describe
the behavior in all details.  The name is more a matter of taste.

Message #32 received at 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>,
 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#16074: 24.3.50; enhancement request: Remove "pop" from
 command names & doc for `C-(u|x) C-SPC'
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 15:03:07 -0700 (PDT)

> > The enhancement request is to fix this wrong
> > terminology wrt BOTH `global-mark-ring' and
> > `mark-ring'.
> 
> And `yank' doesn't yank, and `kill' doesn't kill literally.
> What is the most important is that docstrings should describe
> the behavior in all details.  The name is more a matter of taste.

Irrelevant.  Emacs _has_ "pop" in its terminology,
just like it has "yank" and "kill" (buffer, text).

This mistaken use of "pop" doesn't fit Emacs's use
of the word (or even typical outside uses of it).

And Emacs _has_ a term, "cycle", for the behavior
here.  "Cycle" is the term Emacs uses for rings.

And it's not just about the name.  It's also about
the doc, which incorrectly tells users that the
behavior is to "pop" the mark/position "off" the
ring.

That's wrong; it's not what happens.  That doesn't
"describe the behavior in all details".  Instead,
it describes a different behavior, which doesn't
happen.

Hand-waving alone can't justify this misleading.

On the other hand, as I replied to Eli, you can
decide whether fixing this is "worth the necessary
time, energy, VC resources and your whatnot."
That's up to you.

Message #35 received at 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, stefan <at> marxist.se, 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 drew.adams <at> oracle.com
Subject: Re: bug#16074: 24.3.50;
 enhancement request: Remove "pop" from command names & doc for
 `C-(u|x) C-SPC'
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:26:03 +0300

> From: Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 23:09:45 +0300
> Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>,
>  16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > A position is NOT popped off the ring.  That's what's
> > wrong with all of these.  Likewise, the doc in the
> > manuals.
> >
> > The enhancement request is to fix this wrong
> > terminology wrt BOTH `global-mark-ring' and
> > `mark-ring'.
> 
> And `yank' doesn't yank, and `kill' doesn't kill literally.

And 'window' is not a window, it's a pane; and 'frame' is actually a
window, etc. etc.

> What is the most important is that docstrings should describe
> the behavior in all details.  The name is more a matter of taste.

Indeed.  Especially since what these functions really do is only
slightly different from a literal "pop".

We shouldn't waste our time on such renaming, IMO.

Message #38 received at 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, stefan <at> marxist.se, 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 drew.adams <at> oracle.com
Subject: RE: bug#16074: 24.3.50; enhancement request: Remove "pop" from
 command names & doc for `C-(u|x) C-SPC'
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 06:13:59 -0700 (PDT)

> > > A position is NOT popped off the ring.  That's what's
> > > wrong with all of these.  Likewise, the doc in the
> > > manuals.
> > >
> > > The enhancement request is to fix this wrong
> > > terminology wrt BOTH `global-mark-ring' and
> > > `mark-ring'.
> >
> > And `yank' doesn't yank, and `kill' doesn't kill literally.
> 
> And 'window' is not a window, it's a pane; and 'frame' is actually a
> window, etc. etc.

And all of those terms are standard Emacs
terminology, defined clearly and used
consistently.

That's not the case with this outlier use
of "pop", which is not a pop but is exactly
what Emacs calls "cycling" of a ring.

And again, it's about the doc also, not
just the function names.

Message #43 received at 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: stefan <at> marxist.se, 16074 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams <at> oracle.com,
 Juri Linkov <juri <at> linkov.net>
Subject: Re: bug#16074: 24.3.50; enhancement request: Remove "pop" from
 command names & doc for `C-(u|x) C-SPC'
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:47:13 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> What is the most important is that docstrings should describe
>> the behavior in all details.  The name is more a matter of taste.
>
> Indeed.  Especially since what these functions really do is only
> slightly different from a literal "pop".
>
> We shouldn't waste our time on such renaming, IMO.

OK, it doesn't sound like this renaming was greatly favoured, so I'm
closing this bug report.

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

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.