GNU logs - #66890, boring messages

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#66890: 29.1; buffer-size should also accept the buffer's name as string argument
Resent-From: Daniel Nagy <danielnagy@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 05:54:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.66890.B.169890442312125 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 66890 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: Daniel Nagy <danielnagy@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2023 16:31:01 +0000
Message-ID: <8734xp77vl.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=danielnagy@HIDDEN;
 helo=mout02.posteo.de
X-Spam_score_int: -43
X-Spam_score: -4.4
X-Spam_bar: ----
X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
 DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,
 SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 01:53:40 -0400
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)

Hello,

The current signature of #'buffer-size is:

    (buffer-size &optional BUFFER)

It can only handle actual buffer objects as the argument. Could it be
made to accept the buffer name as a string as well? So that it's
signature would become:

    (buffer-size &optional BUFFER-OR-NAME)

Other functions, like #'get-buffer already do this.

Thanks,
--
Daniel Nagy

Message sent:

Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Daniel Nagy <danielnagy@HIDDEN>
Subject: bug#66890: Acknowledgement (29.1; buffer-size should also accept
 the buffer's name as string argument)
Message-ID: <handler.66890.B.169890442312125.ack <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <8734xp77vl.fsf@HIDDEN>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 66890
X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs
Reply-To: 66890 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 05:54:02 +0000

Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org.

This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.

Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN

If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
send it to 66890 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@HIDDEN unless you wish
to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

--=20
66890: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D66890
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#66890: 29.1; buffer-size should also accept the buffer's name as string argument
Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 06:34:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.66890.B66890.169890681716385 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: Daniel Nagy <danielnagy@HIDDEN>, Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@HIDDEN>
Cc: 66890 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 08:32:38 +0200
Message-Id: <83edh88y2h.fsf@HIDDEN>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <8734xp77vl.fsf@HIDDEN> (message from Daniel Nagy on Wed, 01
 Nov 2023 16:31:01 +0000)
References: <8734xp77vl.fsf@HIDDEN>
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

> From: Daniel Nagy <danielnagy@HIDDEN>
> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2023 16:31:01 +0000
> 
> The current signature of #'buffer-size is:
> 
>     (buffer-size &optional BUFFER)
> 
> It can only handle actual buffer objects as the argument. Could it be
> made to accept the buffer name as a string as well? So that it's
> signature would become:
> 
>     (buffer-size &optional BUFFER-OR-NAME)
> 
> Other functions, like #'get-buffer already do this.

It's very easy to get the buffer from its name.  You could do

  (buffer-size (get-buffer BUFFER-OR-NAME))

So I wonder whether it is worth our while to convert more functions to
accept both buffers and names of buffers.

Stefan, WDYT?

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#66890: 29.1; buffer-size should also accept the buffer's name as string argument
Resent-From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 19:40:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.66890.B66890.169895395120283 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, Daniel Nagy <danielnagy@HIDDEN>
Cc: 66890 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <83edh88y2h.fsf@HIDDEN>
References: <8734xp77vl.fsf@HIDDEN> <83edh88y2h.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 12:38:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CADwFkmnbX6X9T-cz4q_NFot1dZaxpPUY-0WN0r6ZCpMXqUyvXg@HIDDEN>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

tags 66890 + moreinfo
thanks

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> writes:

> It's very easy to get the buffer from its name.  You could do
>
>   (buffer-size (get-buffer BUFFER-OR-NAME))
>
> So I wonder whether it is worth our while to convert more functions to
> accept both buffers and names of buffers.
>
> Stefan, WDYT?

I'd lean towards not making the proposed change, as it stands.

Perhaps, for the sake of consistency, we should allow buffer names in
either none or all buffer-related functions.  But the only example given
so far is `get-buffer', and I don't really see how we could possibly
disallow using strings there.  Thus, it's not very convincing.

If anyone is interested in making a better case for this change, a
single example is not enough.  I'd suggest starting with a review of
what we have now, for example something like `M-x apropos-function RET
^buffer- RET'.

Without such a review, I don't really see that we have grounds for
making any changes here.  So I'm tagging this bug "moreinfo".

Message received at control <at> debbugs.gnu.org:

Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Nov 2023 19:39:10 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Thu Nov 02 15:39:10 2023
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56171 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1qydX4-0005Gy-Cn
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2023 15:39:10 -0400
Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::231]:42165)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <stefankangas@HIDDEN>) id 1qydX2-0005Ga-HB
 for control <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2023 15:39:09 -0400
Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id
 38308e7fff4ca-2c6b5841f61so14679491fa.0
 for <control <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 02 Nov 2023 12:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1698953907; x=1699558707; darn=debbugs.gnu.org;
 h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to
 :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
 bh=j9E4XhLvoXWMlLwTpqI7MccJx+gtmp71ZduL4L6MR/k=;
 b=cB9ljjAOMT8sY7+bGAfAnib6kGq36lYqO7vMsitmwOz8n4CcVKUNkiXeq+pKp1iSVH
 bW+wjyVYOBdzy/QhqmdXiROSMnVj/iPqSPstUx3i6pUS1UBWH2Bas4sixyah9x6HbTbo
 IFNdU4Xmx+D2iG8Ot9gt8f81yKvMgtSVAGUWj3Kpk/29GXrfvBV8H5jIG2MK6nV3KQt4
 vTCpUaVMoIHFGHxEnBlot7yAs1MbJ3Ehza0x3VO7jPD/nhUmI9Hdo9AVbdBDEk0AgJPN
 X50DYCR6wRT5XdbOqBi9rWnCBzUuqtoMTgh5ob6Om0KLl2LiMwKODYKUP1kLqTe1nSRM
 YYXA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1698953907; x=1699558707;
 h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to
 :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
 bh=j9E4XhLvoXWMlLwTpqI7MccJx+gtmp71ZduL4L6MR/k=;
 b=raZ60WX2F39OsZPQzltUI5+YgTW+tgCpOQbin/494tcJQ+NCGGdG4OBnkvMwc5sFab
 P6PhPGoy1GWGCwTh/BI9r6tH5e2djhqDUGKYMsno3sJWNJGB3YT4UyTQFetdPfg8132D
 tHZ3k0S/QNvwajlkoCLseiOwwuauGLG8okG5xZGU/2zfIC/Udqbyr0RWwUxPMvmSH5SZ
 1VJTCkxkouPYoNGJ+L3tNYxRlq5E0KduDbN2C4LpBHD9/D9wqGTLpH9matoKtoOwFkeB
 Pm9zm7FSfzs3ejMT+gHKyslHtOzR28cCOiqNJhEpe8oew3HbwwDOoYQdvwtdvnmpBcti
 fQ+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzINMU82rYkAGHi+dY9TWdKscmvTuTenSGTBJdtqqg5/6AGcAuQ
 5wTdn7IDRvrqfR4so11zQb/UwNZRiHMbQVMTWFI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGk0N//VGl+AKJa47wr9F2HQ1qwNEVaqUKB/qndGW6nDDsIcuylHxdo40+CPzLgVmEPDS7mLHYiC0+PoxkwQv8=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:990c:0:b0:2c5:dc3:5780 with SMTP id
 v12-20020a2e990c000000b002c50dc35780mr261930lji.8.1698953907135; Thu, 02 Nov
 2023 12:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with
 HTTPREST; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 12:38:26 -0700
From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <83edh88y2h.fsf@HIDDEN>
References: <8734xp77vl.fsf@HIDDEN> <83edh88y2h.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 12:38:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CADwFkmnbX6X9T-cz4q_NFot1dZaxpPUY-0WN0r6ZCpMXqUyvXg@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#66890: 29.1; buffer-size should also accept the buffer's name
 as string argument
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, Daniel Nagy <danielnagy@HIDDEN>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Bcc: control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control
Cc: 66890 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

tags 66890 + moreinfo
thanks

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN> writes:

> It's very easy to get the buffer from its name.  You could do
>
>   (buffer-size (get-buffer BUFFER-OR-NAME))
>
> So I wonder whether it is worth our while to convert more functions to
> accept both buffers and names of buffers.
>
> Stefan, WDYT?

I'd lean towards not making the proposed change, as it stands.

Perhaps, for the sake of consistency, we should allow buffer names in
either none or all buffer-related functions.  But the only example given
so far is `get-buffer', and I don't really see how we could possibly
disallow using strings there.  Thus, it's not very convincing.

If anyone is interested in making a better case for this change, a
single example is not enough.  I'd suggest starting with a review of
what we have now, for example something like `M-x apropos-function RET
^buffer- RET'.

Without such a review, I don't really see that we have grounds for
making any changes here.  So I'm tagging this bug "moreinfo".

Last modified: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 19:45:02 UTC

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