[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#23067: 25.0.92; A detail in the doc of query-replace
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#23067: 25.0.92; A detail in the doc of query-replace |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:23:59 +0300 |
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 07:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: 23067-done@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > However, I must say that it makes very little sense to me to make such
> > corrections only in a couple of functions, when we have gobs of them
> > with the same problem in the doc strings, so much so that I wonder
> > whether "end of buffer" isn't already a widely accepted synonym of
> > "end of the buffer's accessible portion", and we shouldn't bother,
> > certainly not with fixing that one function at a time. I won't be
> > surprised if the same issue has crept in the manuals as well.
> >
> > Please, let's not start another prolonged dispute that leads nowhere.
> > Instead, if someone really thinks this stuff should be spelled out in
> > documentation, that someone is kindly requested to submit a patch that
> > fixes _all_ of the instances where we don't say that explicitly. TIA.
>
> There's another way to look at this that occurs to me. It is also
> perhaps not without some ambiguity, but it might nevertheless help.
>
> "End of buffer" can be regarded as `point-max'.
What do you mean "can be"? I was saying that it already is regarded
as such.
> This is what we say in the doc string of the predicate (`eobp') that
> determines (tests for) end-of-buffer-ness:
>
> Return t if point is at the end of the buffer.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> If the buffer is narrowed, this means the end of the narrowed part.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you saying we should change all the similar doc strings to say the
same? If so, how is this different from what I said above, about the
need to change all of them?
bug#23067: 25.0.92; A detail in the doc of query-replace, John Wiegley, 2016/03/26