GNU bug report logs - #40671
[DOC] modify literal objects

Previous Next

Full log

Message #249 received at 40671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>,
 Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>, 40671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>, ke.vigouroux <at> laposte.net
Subject: Re: bug#40671: [DOC] modify literal objects
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:10:46 +0300

On 28.04.2020 23:09, Paul Eggert wrote:
> The word "constant" means different things in different programming languages.
> The meaning used in the Elisp manual is reasonably close to its meaning in
> C/C++/Fortran/Common Lisp/etc., and that describes how Emacs behaves now.

As we've pointed out, Elisp is a wildly different beast from C. Static 
vs. dynamic, etcetera.

> Of course not, but this area needs documentation and when the Emacs concept is
> similar to an already-existing one in C/C++/etc.

Not really.

> Then I don't understand your suggestion.
> 
> I thought you were saying that we should distinguish among the types of
> constants and should say what happens when you modify each type.

Which part of my example contained the "what happens when"?

> A simple way to be clear in this area is to propose specific wording changes,
> preferably in git format-patch form. It's not enough to say "I don't like the
> word 'constant'."

Could you first provide the list of your commits that changed the manual 
pertaining to this discussion?

Then I'll at least know what to try to change.

> Yes, and the documentation does that now. The edge of the wild is the line
> between constants and non-constants.

Write that line between fizzleworp and non-fizzleworp values.

Previous Next

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