Re: doc for call-process, ARGS is missing

[Bastien Guerry]

Bastien Guerry <address@hidden> writes:

> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Chong Yidong wrote:
>>> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> ARGS is totally missing from the doc string.
>>>
>>> Not so:
>>>
>>>   Remaining arguments are strings passed as command arguments to PROGRAM.
>>
>> Thanks Chong and Bastien, it is there, but wouldn't it be good if it
>> were more explicit?
>
> "Remaing arguments ARGS" would perhaps be clearer.  But ARGS is quite a
> standard way of referring to such remaining arguments...

And looking back again to the comment, I think the reason for not using
"Remaining argument ARGS" in the first place was to keep the whole line
under 75 characters - avoiding rejection of "PROGRAM" on a third line..

:-)

-- 
Bastien