Re: vc-do-command: doc/code inconsistency

[Kai Großjohann]

On 11 Nov 2000, Andre Spiegel wrote:
> address@hidden (Kai Großjohann) writes:
> 
>> The doc says that output goes to BUFFER, but the code seems to make
>> output go to (current-buffer).  If I understand it correctly.
> 
> I don't know what makes you believe so.  To me the code seems rather
> clear (incidentally, the buffer-setup thing was written by Stefan
> :-).

Oh, my.  I completely missed the vc-setup-buffer call.  Argh.  I'm
sorry. 

>> While I'm at it: why is the file-relative-name used in that
>> function, rather than putting the expanded file name in squeezed?
> 
> Probably because one of the backends refused to work otherwise (CVS
> is a likely candidate).

Ah.  Thanks, Eli, for clearing this up even further.  I think I
understand now.

The rest of the discussion will go to personal mail, as suggested by
Andre.  Sorry for the line noise.

kai
-- 
The arms should be held in a natural and unaffected way and never
be conspicuous. -- Revised Technique of Latin American Dancing