bug#2792: 23.0.90; doc string of switch-to-buffer

[Drew Adams]

> > > Get rid of the word "WARNING" in the doc string. This is 
> > > just helpful information, not a warning. Warnings are for
> > > things that are inherently dangerous.
> >  
> > It's inherently dangerous, in the sense that if I see a call to
> > `switch-to-buffer' in some Elisp code, I know it's a bug 
> > (the counter examples are so rare they're not worth mentioning).
> 
> No, danger has nothing to do with this.
> 
> Knowing that something is a bug is not knowing that there is 
> a danger. A bug does not imply danger. Using "WARNING" for 
> something that is not a warning dilutes its meaning.
> 
> Use stronger language, if you like. Say, even, that it is 
> most likely a bug to use it in Lisp code (or even a 
> "****BUG!!!!****", if you're really so inclined). But don't 
> use "WARNING".
> 
> Use "WARNING" when you know that it is used in code that 
> controls trains on the same track or nuclear missiles or 
> anthrax tests. ;-)

Oh, BTW. Such diluted WARNINGs apparently do little good. That particular
"WARNING" has been in Emacs since at least Emacs 20, yet there are over 600 grep
hits for `switch-to-buffer' in the distributed Emacs 23 Lisp code.

So much for the Chicken Little approach.