GNU bug report logs - #52290
28.0.90; Undocumented generalized variables

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Phil Sainty <psainty <at> orcon.net.nz>

Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2021 01:27:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: moreinfo

Found in version 28.0.90

Fixed in version 29.1

Done: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #49 received at 52290 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Phil Sainty <psainty <at> orcon.net.nz>, 52290 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: bug#52290: 28.0.90; Undocumented generalized variables
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 04:10:21 +0200
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> 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.




This bug report was last modified 2 years and 289 days ago.

Previous Next


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