[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Kim F. Storm
Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:36:51 +0100
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)
Luc Teirlinck <address@hidden> writes:
> I have the impression that the above described behavior was actually
> always the _intended_ behavior and that the fact that the actual
> behavior is different is an inadvertent bug, rather than intentional.
Indeed -- thanks for working on this.
> The patch also removes the "(printf format)" from the `C-x C-k C-f'
> prompt. This is misleading. No C style printf format is used but an
> Elisp `format' format. Better no hint than a false hint. This is
> a specialized function intended for more knowledgeable users anyway.
> The other two small changes seem obvious:
> (and nil ...
> makes no sense. The other `and' arguments are ignored.
I don't recall why I made that change -- maybe to debug something.
> In the call to `message' the extra "%s" is necessary, because the user
> could have used %s or %o sequences in the macro text, that are
> intended literally.
Can't we just eliminate the call to format, i.e. instead of
(message "%s" (format "%s%s..." ...))
(message "%s%s..." ...)
> Once it would be determined that these changes, as well as the changes
> I am going to propose to man/kmacro.texi are OK,
They look OK. Please install.
> I also intend to
> propose several changes to docstrings that are not very clear, or even
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk
- kmacro.el, Luc Teirlinck, 2004/11/29
- Re: kmacro.el,
Kim F. Storm <=
- Re: kmacro.el, Richard Stallman, 2004/11/30