[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Drew Adams
Subject: bug#34749: 26.1; `delete-windows-on': (1) doc, (2) bug, (3) bug, (4) candidates
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 14:32:48 -0800 (PST)

> > > > I wonder if it would help to give an example where
> > > > we show correspondence between a spec that uses a
> > > > string argument to `interactive' that specifies a
> > > > few args to the function, of different types, and
> > > > a spec that uses a Lisp sexp, which when evaluated
> > > > produces a list of those same args.
> > >
> > > There's an example right after that text.
> >
> > I don't see an example that shows the correspondence
> > between a string arg and a Lisp sexp arg that returns
> > a list of args.
> Why is it important what types are the arguments?  The issue was the
> significance of the newline in the interactive spec string, and that
> is independent of the types of the arguments.

I don't think anyone said that it's important what
types the arguments are or whether arguments of
different types are used in the examples.

I suggested that we show correspondence between use
of a string spec and a Lisp sexp, and do so with the
use of more than one arg (so "\n" in the string spec).

Martin has not answered wrt whether he thinks doing
this would have helped him understand better.

Apparently he did not initially understand this well.
You asked him to say what parts he didn't understand
well.  I made a suggestion, guessing that it might

I don't choose to argue with you about this.  Just
trying to help.

reply via email to

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