bug-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#4728: marked as done (23.1; doc of `buffer-name')


From: Emacs bug Tracking System
Subject: bug#4728: marked as done (23.1; doc of `buffer-name')
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:50:05 +0000

Your message dated Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:41:49 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#4728: 23.1; doc of `buffer-name'
has caused the Emacs bug report #4728,
regarding 23.1; doc of `buffer-name'
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact address@hidden
immediately.)


-- 
4728: http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=4728
Emacs Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 23.1; doc of `buffer-name' Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:03:23 -0700
Doc string:
 
 Return the name of BUFFER, as a string.
 With no argument or nil as argument, return the name of the current
 buffer.
 
Elisp manual, node Buffer Names:
 
 This function returns the name of BUFFER as a string.  BUFFER
 defaults to the current buffer.
 
 If `buffer-name' returns `nil', it means that BUFFER has been
 killed.  *Note Killing Buffers::.
 
The doc string suggests that the function always returns a string,
which the manual belies.  The doc string needs to mention the possible
nil return value.
 
 
 
In GNU Emacs 23.1.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2009-07-29 on SOFT-MJASON
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (4.4)'
 




--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#4728: 23.1; doc of `buffer-name' Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:41:49 +0200
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 08:03, Drew Adams <address@hidden> wrote:

> The doc string suggests that the function always returns a string,
> which the manual belies.  The doc string needs to mention the possible
> nil return value.

Done.

    Juanma

--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]