GNU bug report logs -
#32629
26; `buffer-list-update-hook' doc string
Previous Next
Reported by: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 20:35:02 UTC
Severity: wishlist
Tags: wontfix
Done: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 32629 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 32629 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#32629
; Package
emacs
.
(Mon, 03 Sep 2018 20:35:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
.
(Mon, 03 Sep 2018 20:35:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook.
In GNU Emacs 26.1 (build 1, x86_64-w64-mingw32)
of 2018-05-30
Repository revision: 07f8f9bc5a51f5aa94eb099f3e15fbe0c20ea1ea
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 10.0.16299
Configured using:
`configure --without-dbus --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32
--without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-O2 -static -g3''
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#32629
; Package
emacs
.
(Tue, 04 Sep 2018 07:53:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 32629 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook.
If you feel strongly about this, please submit a new doc-string.
Thanks, martin
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#32629
; Package
emacs
.
(Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:24:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 32629 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 13:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
>
> The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook.
Why not?
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#32629
; Package
emacs
.
(Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:52:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 32629 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> > The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook.
>
> Why not?
Same reason we don't do that elsewhere (do we?). Instead we
say, in the doc for each such function, that it runs the hook.
(Similarly, we don't list, in the doc for some function, all of the
functions that might call it.)
The most that could be done would be to list the functions
known, ahead of time, to run the hook. But even that is
counterproductive, IMO.
Let me ask: Why should this doc list the functions that run the
hook? And do you know of other places where we do that?
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#32629
; Package
emacs
.
(Mon, 10 Sep 2018 14:19:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #17 received at 32629 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 06:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> Cc: 32629 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > > The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Same reason we don't do that elsewhere (do we?).
I see no reason for such a stringent consistency.
> Instead we say, in the doc for each such function, that it runs the
> hook.
We don't say that for every hook, only for some, and mostly for hooks
that are called only from a single function.
> (Similarly, we don't list, in the doc for some function, all of the
> functions that might call it.)
Of course not. But in this case doing that makes sense.
> Let me ask: Why should this doc list the functions that run the
> hook?
Because it tells one indirectly what changes are considered to "update
the buffer list".
> And do you know of other places where we do that?
I don't think this question is relevant. We need to consider each
case separately.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#32629
; Package
emacs
.
(Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:01:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #20 received at 32629 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> > > > The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Same reason we don't do that elsewhere (do we?).
>
> I see no reason for such a stringent consistency.
No, there's no need for a stringent consistency.
That's generally true.
> Of course not. But in this case doing that makes sense.
> Because it tells one indirectly what changes are considered to "update
> the buffer list".
OK. Thanks for thinking about it.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#32629
; Package
emacs
.
(Tue, 11 Sep 2018 04:23:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #23 received at 32629 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> > > > The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> >
> > Same reason we don't do that elsewhere (do we?).
We could add a facility to find all the callers of a function.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
Information forwarded
to
bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
:
bug#32629
; Package
emacs
.
(Thu, 03 Oct 2019 01:47:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #26 received at 32629 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
tags 32629 + wontfix
close 32629
thanks
Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:
>> > > > The doc string should not list the functions that run the hook.
>> > >
>> > > Why not?
>> >
>> > Same reason we don't do that elsewhere (do we?).
>>
>> I see no reason for such a stringent consistency.
>
> No, there's no need for a stringent consistency.
> That's generally true.
>
>> Of course not. But in this case doing that makes sense.
>> Because it tells one indirectly what changes are considered to "update
>> the buffer list".
>
> OK. Thanks for thinking about it.
The conclusion here was that the doc string is fine as it is. Closing.
Best regards,
Stefan Kangas
Added tag(s) wontfix.
Request was from
Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Thu, 03 Oct 2019 01:47:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug closed, send any further explanations to
32629 <at> debbugs.gnu.org and Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Request was from
Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Thu, 03 Oct 2019 01:47:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Thu, 31 Oct 2019 11:24:06 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 4 years and 176 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.