[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#32064: 26; doc string of `eval-last-sexp'

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: bug#32064: 26; doc string of `eval-last-sexp'
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 12:37:33 +0300

> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 14:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <address@hidden>
> Looking at `eval-expression-get-print-arguments' and the doc string for 
> `eval-expression', things are a bit clearer.  At least please incorporate 
> something like what is said for `eval-expression' in the doc of 
> `eval-last-sexp'. 

I preferred to fix eval-last-sexp in a somewhat different way.

> But even the `eval-expression' doc is not very good for the description of 
> CHAR-PRINT-LIMIT.  It's not true that "unless given a positive prefix 
> argument" a number value is printed in several... Try a prefix arg of -9, for 
> instance.

Right, fixed.

> The doc of `eval-expression-get-print-arguments' says that it determines the 
> prefix-arg behavior for `eval-last-sexp'.  Is that true?


> The doc of `eval-expression-get-print-arguments' needs to specify the logic 
> of what it does, and that info needs to be included in the doc of 
> `eval-expression' and (if appropriate) the doc of `eval-last-sexp'.  Or at 
> least their doc needs to point to such info.

I see no reason to point to eval-expression-get-print-arguments in the
doc string of eval-last-sexp.  If someone reads the code of
eval-last-sexp, they will see the call, and will look up the function.

> The doc string for `eval-expression-print-format' is not great either.  It 
> says only what the result will "typically" look like.  It needs to specify 
> what formats it outputs, under what conditions.

I don't see the need, as the code is quite self-describing.

> And the various doc strings seem to suggest that the handling of the last 
> arg, CHAR-PRINT-LIMIT by `eval-exprresion' is different from its handling by 
> `eval-last-sexp'.  But is that true?

No, it is not true.  Fixed.

I'm closing the bug, thanks for pointing out these blunders.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]