Subject: bug#5744: 23.1.92; doc string of `version<' etc.

From: "Drew Adams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:55:16 -0700

> The actual behaviour depends on values of a few variables. See the doc
> strings for `version-regexp-alist', `version-to-list' and
> `version-separator'.
> 
> Perhaps pointing to them (and fixing the typos) in all the
> version-related functions would be a solution?

Yes. If there is a one of them that covers everything (e.g. by linking to the
others), then it would be enough to link to just that one. But if the reader
needs to understand all 3 variables in order to understand the acceptable
formats, then we should link to all 3.

> >> Also note that you would most probably want to change docstrings of
> >> the whole family of the version functions to stay consistent.
> >
> > Of course. That's why I wrote "`version<' ETC." in the subject line.
> 
> Indeed, I noticed that only after having replied, I'm sorry.

No problem. Admittedly, it wasn't very obvious.