bug#2792: 23.0.90; doc string of switch-to-buffer
"Drew Adams" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.emacs.bugs,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> > > 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.