bug#14712: 24.3.50; `isearch-filter-visible' obsolescence

[Drew Adams]

> > The proper replacement is given in the source code:
> 
> > (or (eq search-invisible t)
> >     (not (isearch-range-invisible beg end)))
> 
> > It is that information that needs to be conveyed in the obsolescence
> > message.
> 
> No, the obsolescence message only points to the other
> variable/function/feature with which you can obtain similar results.
> It's generally not a drop-in replacement.

No. There is a bug here - perhaps two.

Either (a) the message produced, itself, is incorrect/misleading (I don't have 
the message in hand), because it tells you to simply "replace" the one by the 
other, or (b) the doc string of `make-obsolete' is wrong, because it says that:

"The warning will say that CURRENT-NAME should be used instead."

It is not a simple case of using CURRENT-NAME instead of the obsolete name.  
This doc string says in effect that this obsolescence operation is simply a 
renaming (use this name instead of that name), but it is not.

Extremely misleading at the very least.  And outright incorrect, by any 
reasonable reading.