[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#50731: `progress-reporter-update' docstring and `backward-sexp' inte
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#50731: `progress-reporter-update' docstring and `backward-sexp' interaction |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Sep 2021 10:47:41 +0300 |
> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>
> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:12:08 -0700
> Cc: 50731@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > Once again, why does checkdoc want you to have 2 spaces there? what
> > rule is it that ends up requiring that?
>
> Sorry, I didn't understand you were asking about checkdoc.
Because you said:
> This in turn leads to checkdoc flagging this as a mistake, and asks you
> to put two spaces after dot.
I read this as the issue you'd like to solve: to prevent checkdoc from
flagging this as a mistake. Was I misinterpreting your report?
> The code
> there is really simple: find the next dot (that is also at a word
> boundary), run `backward-sexp', use a regexp to see if this is an
> abbreviation.
>
> So it lands on the "r" in "reporter---i.e." and says, no, this is not an
> abbreviation I know about
Isn't _that_ a bug, right there? Why does checkdoc use this strange
strategy for identifying abbreviations? A punctuation character that
precedes an abbreviation shouldn't interfere with recognizing the
abbreviation, IMO. And using sexp movements in text that is not
really a sexp is perhaps "the original sin" here?
IOW, I see no reason whatsoever to believe backward-sexp is the
problem here. The problem is in checkdoc, and IMO should be solved
there.
bug#50731: `progress-reporter-update' docstring and `backward-sexp' interaction, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2021/09/22