bug#66649: 29.1; `project-remember-projects-under' behavior doesn't match its doc

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 08/11/2023 21:58, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
> Dmitry Gutov<dgutov@yandex.ru>  writes:
>
> > On 08/11/2023 10:13, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
> > > I don't think this is the same problem, in
> > > `project-forget-projects-under' there is no manual recursive descent,
> > > just some duplicated code.  We could also re-write it to look like this:
> > > diff --git a/lisp/progmodes/project.el b/lisp/progmodes/project.el
> > > index 95db9d0ef4c..5f1cce160b2 100644
> > > --- a/lisp/progmodes/project.el
> > > +++ b/lisp/progmodes/project.el
> > > @@ -1905,15 +1905,12 @@ project-forget-projects-under
> > >    forgotten projects."
> > >      (interactive "DDirectory: \nP")
> > >      (let ((count 0))
> > > -    (if recursive
> > > -        (dolist (proj (project-known-project-roots))
> > > -          (when (file-in-directory-p proj dir)
> > > -            (project-forget-project proj)
> > > -            (setq count (1+ count))))
> > > -      (dolist (proj (project-known-project-roots))
> > > -        (when (file-equal-p (file-name-directory proj) dir)
> > > -          (project-forget-project proj)
> > > -          (setq count (1+ count)))))
> > > +    (dolist (proj (project-known-project-roots))
> > > +      (when (if recursive
> > > +                (file-in-directory-p proj dir)
> > > +              (file-equal-p (file-name-directory proj) dir))
> > > +        (project-forget-project proj)
> > > +        (setq count (1+ count))))
> > >        (if (zerop count)
> > >            (message "No projects were forgotten")
> > >          (project--write-project-list)
> > > But that would incur a branch in every iteration of `dolist'.
> > LGTM too. The branch-per-iteration is unlikely to move a needle in any
> > realistic scenario.
> >
> > Up to you, whether to install this or keep the original version.
> I don't see a need, this is basically an aesthetic change.  Should we
> close the bug report?

Damien, is there anything else here to do?

Did you perhaps also (or instead) saw a problem with either of the 
docstrings? I'm not sure if I understood the last complaint correctly.