Re: Question about intended behavior of 'insert-for-yank-1'.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Karl Fogel <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:15:22 -0500
> 
> Thanks, Eli.  Yes, that's true, but note that the doc string for 
> `insert-for-yank' just refers the reader to `insert-for-yank-1' for details.  
> The only doc string where the STRING-passing behavior is discussed is the doc 
> string of `insert-for-yank-1', and that doc string indicates, or strongly 
> implies, that the entirety of STRING is passed (which it isn't).

Ah, so this is about the doc string of insert-for-yank, not its
subroutine.

> Are you saying that in your view there is no documentation deficiency here?  

I agree that the doc string of insert-for-yank should describe what it
does.  What it says now hardly qualifies as documentation, and
referring to an internal subroutine for that is, shall we say,
suboptimal ;-)

Feel free to improve the doc string of insert-for-yank.

Thanks.