bug#34749: 26.1; `delete-windows-on': (1) doc, (2) bug, (3) bug, (4) candidates

[Drew Adams]

>  >> That text is all right and yet was incomprehensible for me at first
>  >> (and second) reading.  It's probably just me, so ignore that.
>  >
>  > Maybe we should improve it.  But I cannot tell how, because "a
>  > sequence of elements separated by newlines, one for each argument" is
>  > very clear for me.  If you can tell what was incomprehensible in that,
>  > maybe we will be able to come up with an improvement.
> 
> The text is too perfect with two cross references, a footnote and an
> example with a hacker idiom.  Not a single redundancy, not a word to
> miss.  Probably too terse for me.

I wonder if it would help to give an example where
we show correspondence between a spec that uses a
string argument to `interactive' that specifies a
few args to the function, of different types, and
a spec that uses a Lisp sexp, which when evaluated
produces a list of those same args.

For example (doing this quickly just to show what
I mean - I'm sure we could come up with something
better):

(interactive
  (let* ((arg   current-prefix-arg)
         (narg  (prefix-numeric-value arg))
         (buf   (read-buffer "Existing buffer: "
                             (buffer-name (current-buffer))
                             t))
         (char  (read-char "Character: ")))
    (list (buf narg arg nil char))))

(interactive "bExisting buffer: \np\nP\ni\ncCharacter: ")