GNU bug report logs - #1381
23.0.60; capitalization of car and cdr in the doc

Package: emacs;

Reported by: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:30:03 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: wontfix

Done: Chong Yidong <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 1381 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 1381 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox

Report forwarded to bug-submit-list <at> lists.donarmstrong.com, Emacs Bugs <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>:
bug#1381; Package emacs. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Emacs Bugs <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: <emacs-pretest-bug <at> gnu.org>
Subject: 23.0.60; capitalization of car and cdr in the doc
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:22:25 -0800

See for example these nodes of the Elisp manual: Cons Cell Type,
Search-based Fontification (which should be called Search-Based
Fontification, BTW).
 
I'd suggest not making CAR and CDR uppercase. There is no need to do
that; they are normal words of our vocabulary: speaking about "the
cdr" is no different from speaking about "the cons" ("the cons
cell"). 
 
The first time these terms are introduced (defined), then whatever
convention (quotation marks, uppercase, italic - whatever it is) we
normally use to introduce new terms should be followed, of course.
But thereafter we should just write about conses, cars, and cdrs,
using no special typography. Not CONSes, CARs, and CDRs, and not
CONSES, CARS, and CDRS.
 
Especially in a context, such as node Search-Based Fontification,
where uppercase means something different, treating "car" and "cdr" as
"CAR" and "CDR" is confusing:
 
  `(MATCHER . SUBEXP)'
     In this kind of element, MATCHER is either a regular expression or
     a function, as described above.  The CDR, SUBEXP, specifies which
     subexpression of MATCHER should be highlighted (instead of the
     entire text that MATCHER matched).
 
We wouldn't write "the CDR of the CONS".  "the CDR of the cons" is no
more appropriate. It's clearest to write "the car of the cons".
 
Also, if we don't already do so (I didn't find it), then we should
mention (e.g. in node Cons Cell Type) that "cons" is sometimes used as
short for "cons cell": a cons is a cons cell.  That will improve
readability.  The alternative of mentioning this is to make sure that
we use "cons cell" each time.
 
Naturally, whatever convention we use generally for Emacs vocabulary
should be used for "car" and "cdr" too.  I'm not sure what it is, but
I know we don't use uppercase systematically for Emacs terminology:
"The BUFFER displayed in the top WINDOW of the selected FRAME...".
Similarly: "This cons, whose cdr is 42, has the symbol `foo' as its
car", not "This CONS, whose CDR is 42, has the SYMBOL `foo' as its
CAR".
 
Car 54, where are you?
 
Caveat: I'm looking at the doc in Info (in Emacs). I have no idea how
these terms appear in print. 
 
 
 
In GNU Emacs 23.0.60.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2008-11-08 on LENNART-69DE564
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4) --no-opt --cflags -Ic:/g/include
-fno-crossjumping'