GNU bug report logs - #25406
24.5; doc string of `Info-history'

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 25406 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 25406 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: 24.5; doc string of `Info-history'
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 08:39:13 -0800 (PST)

The doc string of `Info-find-emacs-command-nodes' refers you to variable
`Info-history' for the format of the locations.

But the doc for `Info-history' says nothing about FILENAME, NODENAME,
and BUFFERPOS.

Instead, those are described in `Info-find-emacs-command-nodes'.

Something is backwards here, and/or missing.  Why refer to "the format
used in the variable `Info-history' if consulting that variable tells
you less about the format that what you are told before sending you
there?

Also, the language in the last sentence of the doc string for
`Info-find-emacs-command-nodes' is not so good.  I'm guessing that
this might be what is really meant:

 ", where BUFFERPOS is the line number
 of the first element of the returned list (which is treated specially
 in `Info-goto-emacs-command-node'), and 0 for the other elements of
 the list."

But why the parenthetical remark, and what it really means, I have
no idea.


In GNU Emacs 24.5.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
 of 2015-04-11 on LEG570
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --prefix=/c/usr --host=i686-pc-mingw32'

Message #8 received at 25406 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 25406 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25406: 24.5; doc string of `Info-history'
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2017 20:36:45 +0200

> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 08:39:13 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> 
> The doc string of `Info-find-emacs-command-nodes' refers you to variable
> `Info-history' for the format of the locations.
> 
> But the doc for `Info-history' says nothing about FILENAME, NODENAME,
> and BUFFERPOS.
> 
> Instead, those are described in `Info-find-emacs-command-nodes'.

Yes, and that is consistent with the text of the doc string.

> Something is backwards here, and/or missing.  Why refer to "the format
> used in the variable `Info-history' if consulting that variable tells
> you less about the format that what you are told before sending you
> there?

While the reference to Info-history might be redundant to some degree,
I see nothing wrong with it -- or the rest of the text.

>  ", where BUFFERPOS is the line number
>  of the first element of the returned list (which is treated specially
>  in `Info-goto-emacs-command-node'), and 0 for the other elements of
>  the list."
> 
> But why the parenthetical remark, and what it really means, I have
> no idea.

It is a hint for why BUFFERPOS is non-zero only in that first element.
That hint is only important to someone who wants to understand how the
code works.

Message #13 received at 25406 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25406 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#25406: 24.5; doc string of `Info-history'
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 14:17:39 +0200

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

>> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 08:39:13 -0800 (PST)
>> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
>>
>> The doc string of `Info-find-emacs-command-nodes' refers you to variable
>> `Info-history' for the format of the locations.
>>
>> But the doc for `Info-history' says nothing about FILENAME, NODENAME,
>> and BUFFERPOS.
>>
>> Instead, those are described in `Info-find-emacs-command-nodes'.
>
> Yes, and that is consistent with the text of the doc string.
>
>> Something is backwards here, and/or missing.  Why refer to "the format
>> used in the variable `Info-history' if consulting that variable tells
>> you less about the format that what you are told before sending you
>> there?
>
> While the reference to Info-history might be redundant to some degree,
> I see nothing wrong with it -- or the rest of the text.
>
>>  ", where BUFFERPOS is the line number
>>  of the first element of the returned list (which is treated specially
>>  in `Info-goto-emacs-command-node'), and 0 for the other elements of
>>  the list."
>>
>> But why the parenthetical remark, and what it really means, I have
>> no idea.
>
> It is a hint for why BUFFERPOS is non-zero only in that first element.
> That hint is only important to someone who wants to understand how the
> code works.

It seems to me that the conclusion here is to do nothing.  Can we close
this bug report or am I missing something?

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message #16 received at 25406 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Cc: 25406 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams <at> oracle.com
Subject: Re: bug#25406: 24.5; doc string of `Info-history'
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 15:38:51 +0300

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 14:17:39 +0200
> Cc: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>, 25406 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> It seems to me that the conclusion here is to do nothing.  Can we close
> this bug report or am I missing something?

I'm fine with closing it.

Message #21 received at 25406-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 25406-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Subject: Re: bug#25406: 24.5; doc string of `Info-history'
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 16:02:00 +0200

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

> > From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
> > Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 14:17:39 +0200
> > Cc: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>, 25406 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >
> > It seems to me that the conclusion here is to do nothing.  Can we close
> > this bug report or am I missing something?
>
> I'm fine with closing it.

OK, closed.

Thanks,
Stefan Kangas

Previous Next

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