[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append |
Date: |
Sat, 21 Jan 2023 21:23:24 +0200 |
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> CC: "59559@debbugs.gnu.org" <59559@debbugs.gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:51:25 +0000
>
> > How about just adding the obvious to the first sentence:
> >
> > Temporarily add function FUN to `minibuffer-setup-hook' while executing
> > BODY.
>
> To me, that doesn't help at all. And as you would
> (usually) say, "function FUN" can just be replaced
> by "FUNCTION" there.
That's a tangent. Let's keep our focus where it belongs.
> Just saying that the first arg is a function doesn't
> solve the problem. What is the first arg, exactly?
> Is it evaluated?
How is this different from the below:
expand-file-name is a built-in function in ‘C source code’.
(expand-file-name NAME &optional DEFAULT-DIRECTORY)
Convert filename NAME to absolute, and canonicalize it.
[...]
NAME should be a string [...]
Since when do we ask about function's arguments whether they are
evaluated or not? and why for that particular function and not for
others?
> It's a sexp. Either that sexp is a list `(:append F)',
> in which case only F is evaluated, to provide the
> function to add (append), or the entire FUN sexp is
> evaluated to provide the function to add (prepend).
You are splitting hair. Once again, saying that an argument can (or
should) be of some form is a paradigm we use a lot in our doc strings,
and this case is not different.
> It's this unusual behavior that needs to be understood,
> and thus described - in particular pointing out that
> the arg isn't just evaluated to begin with.
No, it isn't unusual.
> > All the rest sounds clear to me, and I find the original text less
> > confusing than your proposed change ("expression that should evaluate
> > to a function"?).
>
> Please see the text suggestions I proposed. Somehow
> we need to get across the unusual treatment of the
> first arg.
It isn't unusual. I see nothing here that needs some special wording.
And let's not make this another endless discussion where you refuse to
accept the judgment of others.
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, (continued)
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Drew Adams, 2023/01/10
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Michael Heerdegen, 2023/01/21
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/01/21
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Michael Heerdegen, 2023/01/21
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/01/21
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Drew Adams, 2023/01/21
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/01/21
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Drew Adams, 2023/01/21
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Drew Adams, 2023/01/21
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Drew Adams, 2023/01/21
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/01/21
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Michael Heerdegen, 2023/01/21
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/01/22
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Drew Adams, 2023/01/22
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Drew Adams, 2023/01/22
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Michael Heerdegen, 2023/01/22
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Drew Adams, 2023/01/22
- bug#59559: 28.1; `minibuffer-with-setup-hook' with :append, Drew Adams, 2023/01/22