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

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 09:39:50 +0100
> From: martin rudalics <rudalics@gmx.at>
> CC: drew.adams@oracle.com, 34749@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> You mean to use a universal prefix nomenclature such that, for
> example, 0 means all visible and iconified frames, 1 all windows on
> the selected frame, 2 all visible frames (for a C-u with a numeric
> argument only solution) and so on?

Something like that, except "C-u C-u" might be easier to type than
"C-u 2", so perhaps use the former for some of the possible values.

> But the most interesting functions that would benefit from such a
> nomenclature are `other-window' and `other-frame' and both use the
> prefix argument for skipping.

Those other-* function also need to allow the user to specify a count,
something that we don't have to do here.  So there's no reason to
expect consistency here.  (I do think it would be good to allow the
user to control the last argument of other-window and other-frame as
well, if that's possible, but the solution doesn't have to be
identical to what we do with delete-windows-on.)

>  >     • It may be a string; its contents are a sequence of elements
>  >       separated by newlines, one for each argument(1).  Each element
>  >       consists of a code character (*note Interactive Codes::) optionally
>  >       followed by a prompt (which some code characters use and some
>  >       ignore).  Here is an example:
>  >
>  >            (interactive "P\nbFrobnicate buffer: ")
>  >
>  >       The code letter ‘P’ sets the command’s first argument to the raw
>  >       command prefix (*note Prefix Command Arguments::).  ‘bFrobnicate
>  >       buffer: ’ prompts the user with ‘Frobnicate buffer: ’ to enter the
>  >       name of an existing buffer, which becomes the second and final
>  >       argument.
> 
> 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.

Thanks.