GNU bug report logs - #66303
[PATCH] Document 'M-x align' in the Emacs manual

Previous Next

Full log

Message #42 received at 66303-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
Cc: 66303-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#66303: [PATCH] Document 'M-x align' in the Emacs manual
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 14:17:10 +0300

> From: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
> Cc: 66303 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 12:47:05 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Eshel Yaron <me <at> eshelyaron.com>
> >> Cc: 66303 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 12:02:20 +0200
> >>
> >> > Here and elsewhere you mention regexp sub-expressions.  Please add in
> >> > those places a cross-reference to where sub-expressions are described
> >> > in the manual, since this is an advanced aspect of regexps with which
> >> > some readers might not be well acquainted.
> >>
> >> Sure, I've added cross-references to the "Regular Expressions" node in
> >> the Elisp manual.  Alternatively, we could link to "Regexp Backslash" in
> >> the Emacs manual, if you think that's preferable.
> >
> > It is better to cross-reference to the same manual, assuming it does
> > document the sub-expressions.  Only if it doesn't document them well
> > enough should we cross-reference to ELisp.
> 
> Neither manual documents the concept of sub-expressions in detail
> AFAICT, both only describe the relevant syntax.  The text in the Elisp
> manual seems a bit more relevant to me, but I can see how sticking to
> the Emacs manual may be preferable.  I'm attaching a revised (v5) patch
> that refers to "Regexp Backslash" in the Emacs manual instead.  I've
> also added a reference to this bug number in the commit message:

Thanks, installed on the emacs-29 branch, and closing the bug.

Previous Next

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