bug#41727: 26.3; Doc of `define-minor-mode' and minor-mode commands

[Drew Adams]

> My point was that you take the text out of its context, and that
> context spells out what you say is missing.

No, it does not.  It does not at all say what I say
is missing from the description of the Lisp-call
behavior.

> This is not the first time you raise this issue, and the argument
> always goes the same way.  I wish you'd stopped these repeated
> complaints about the same thing.

I've never made such a "complaint" before.  Please
point to one such, if you think doing so really adds
value here.

Or is your effort only to argue ad hominem, as if
I'm doing something bad, and have done it "repeated"ly?
How about addressing the actual bug report?

You tell me how the existing text (cited by both you and
me) correctly and completely describes the Lisp behavior.
Passing symbol `-' isn't passing an integer, and so on.

Now, if you just don't want to fix the text, that's
another story.  But I think you'll find it hard to argue
that the report is mistaken and the text is accurate and
complete.

And I hope you realize that the handling of the arg to
`define-minor-mode' has been the subject of a fair amount
of confusion.  There have been several attempts to improve
the doc.  But it's still not as clear and helpful as it
should be.  And the fix is simple: say the missing bits
wrt the Lisp case.

> > > Are you reading obsolete docs?
> >
> > I'm reading the 26.3 docs, as suggested by the report:
> 
> The latest sources seem to be different.

Different from what?  I stated that what you wrote
is exactly the text I was referring to, verbatim.
You simply added the text about the interactive
case.  AFAICT, we're talking about exactly the same
text, in the same release, 26.3.

I wonder if you're actually reading what I wrote.

The text you quote is exactly the text that suffers
from the problem I raised.  The text about the
interactive case in no way helps describe the missing
parts of the case for the Lisp behavior.