GNU bug report logs - #14802
24.3.50; (elisp) Multiple Terminals - what is a terminal attribute?

Previous Next

Full log

Message #35 received at 14802-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 14802-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, larsi <at> gnus.org
Subject: Re: bug#14802: 24.3.50;
 (elisp) Multiple Terminals - what is a terminal attribute?
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 21:52:26 +0200

> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:27:58 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, 14802 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > I really don't understand the purpose of this bug report, because
> > this very node is the answer to all your questions and gripes.  It
> > includes:
> > 
> >   . a full list of the attributes of a terminal object (directly
> >     below the single sentence you cited in your report)
> >   . documentation of functions that access those attributes, and
> >   . references to other nodes where related features and issues are
> >     described
> 
> So you _are_ saying that "terminal attribute" is a term and concept
> being introduced, and we are not just using the English word
> "attribute" in a general sense.

It's not a term or concept, no.  It's a word.

> In that case, please put it in quotes, as we usually do for a term
> introduction.

It's not a term.

> And, as this bug report requests, say something about what it is, if
> you can - what the term means.  Listing values is not really a
> substitute for that.

Yes, it is.  Because it's not a term.

> > I see nothing wrong with the word "attribute".  In this very manual,
> > we have:
> > 
> >   . text attributes
> >   . face attributes
> >   . file attributes
> >   . package attributes
> >   . process attributes
> > 
> > What's wrong with having "terminal object attributes"?
> 
> Nothing.  Say what you mean by the term, as we do for each of
> the others you cited.

We don't.

> And index it.

It's not a term, so no need to index it.

> Or follow `i package attribute', to see:
> 
>   Each package (whether simple or multi-file) has certain
>   "attributes":

Which is exactly what we say about terminal attributes.

> (That one is a minimal description - it just introduces particular
> attributes without saying what is meant by the term.  But at least
> it introduces the term explicitly.)

It's not a term.

> BTW, "attributes of text" is in the index, but "text attribute"
> should also be added.

Yes, we should also index "text", and perhaps also "index", because
otherwise who knows what these mean?

> * The term "file attribute" also should be introduced explicitly,
>   in node `File Attributes'.  E.g.:
> 
>     ...detailed information about a file, including the owner and
>     group numbers, the number of names, the inode number, the size,
>     and the times of access and modification.
> 
>   Add something like this: `These characteristics are referred to as
>   "file attributes".'
> 
> * "Process attribute" is also not introduced explicitly, in node
>   `System Processes'.  Also, although function `process-attributes'
>   is indexed, `process attribute' is not.

Like I said: terminal attributes are not special.

Closing, as there's nothing more to be said here, and no bug anywhere
in sight.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.