Subject: Re: bug#52290: 28.0.90; Undocumented generalized variables

From: Michael Heerdegen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 04:10:21 +0200

Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email-masked]> writes:

> > Can we try to find a better wording?  Not the function is a generalized
> > variable, a form that is a call of the function is. [...]

> Yes, please do tweak the wording.  I couldn't find any concise way of
> saying something here accurately, so I went for vague instead (note that
> I don't mention "function" anywhere in the text), and just punt to the
> manual.

Ok - not that easy!  Alternatives I see are "... `setf'able'" or
"... can be used in generalized variables" or "...in place expressions"
or "can be used in gv forms - see [Generalized Variables]."

Does something like that sound better than what we have?

BTW, another problem is that `alist-get' tells how it works as place
(because it's not totally trivial in this case), and at the end "... is
also a generalized variable" is added - kind of misplaced because the
reader already knows at this point.  Personally I would prefer that hint
near the beginning (without "also") - in all cases I think.

WDYT?

TIA,

Michael.