RE: (fn ...) - please fill it at the point of generation

[Drew Adams]

> >> Why don't you just wrap them yourself, in the code that calls
> >> `documentation'?  Wrapping is, in general, a display thing, so it
> >> seems best to not add hair in more primitive code to worry about it.
> >
> > Why change all such code, instead of preventing the bug in the
> > first place? Code that generates user doc should be smart
> > enough to respect the GNU Emacs convention for line length.
> > What's the big deal?
>
> Why do you assume that applications _want_ it wrapped?

It's a doc string. All lines in a doc string follow a convention, including
being within a max length. Why should this be the only exception?

> It's really not part of the doc string as such, it's an interface
> description.

That's a good feint. This part of the doc string isn't right, so to fix
things we'll just say it's not part of the doc string.

I don't agree. It is served up with `documentation' - there is no way around
that, except to try to parse the doc string after retrieval to remove that
part.

If it is not part of the doc string, then leave it out of `documentation',
and have a separate function to retrieve only the interface spec.

> Wrapping it simply introduces extra noise.

Needing to wrap it in multiple places (`describe-*',...) instead of one
because it was not written correctly in the first place introduces far more
noise.

> > 2. Pretty much all other lines of every doc string are correct in this
> > regard. Why should this be the lone exception and force all
> > code that uses doc-strings to patch things up after the fact?
>
> See above.

Oh, you mean where you simply declare it not to be part of the doc string?