GNU bug report logs - #67185
Small bug in the Introduction to Elisp manual

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ryan Hodges <rphodges <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 67185 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
Subject: bug#67185: Small bug in the Introduction to Elisp manual
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:18:23 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Eli,
Thanks for the reply.  I can see where you're going with the word
'converse'.  I'm not hung up on it but I think it could use a little
clarification on what we mean by "opposite of 'when'".

If you decide the manual warrants a tweak and you want me to take a crack
at it, let me know.  Otherwise, I appreciate your time.

Cheers,
Ryan Hodges



On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 11:33 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> [Please use Reply All to reply, so that everyone is CC'ed.]
>
> > From: Ryan Hodges <rphodges <at> gmail.com>
> > Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 09:58:11 -0800
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 4:18 AM Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> >  > From: Ryan Hodges <rphodges <at> gmail.com>
> >  > Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:14:53 -0800
> >  >
> >  > In section '8.2.2 Lisp macro' it says,
> >  >
> >  >  "The ‘kill-region’ function definition also has an ‘unless’ macro; it
> >  >  is the converse of ‘when’.  The ‘unless’ macro is an ‘if’ without a
> then clause"
> >  >
> >  > Instead of saying "converse of 'when'" it should say "inverse of
> >  > 'when'."
> >
> >  I'm not a native English speaker, but "converse" sounds correct to me
> >  in this context.
> >
> > 'converse'  means to reverse the order of.
>
> Not necessarily, at least not  according to the dictionaries I see.  For
> example
> (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/converse):
>
>    The converse of a statement is its opposite or reverse.
>
> Or (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/converse):
>
>   the opposite:
>     . In the US, you drive on the right-hand side of the road, but in the
> UK the converse applies.
>     . However, the converse of this theory may also be true.
>
> >  No, it says it doesn't have "then", i.e. it only have the "else" part.
> >  Which sounds fine to me.
> >
> > Earlier in the document, 'when' is described as an 'if' statement
> without an 'else' clause.  That makes
> > sense to me.  The 'else' clause is completely optional.  i.e the 'if'
> form below does not have an 'else'
> >
> > (if (> 5 4) 'true)
> >
> > In this section of the document we are describing an 'if' without a
> 'then'.  That didn't make sense to me
> > because the 'then' clause is a mandatory argument.  It can be 'nil' but
> it's still mandatory.
>
> AFAIU, the text attempts to explain 'when' and 'unless' in terms if
> 'if', and it doesn't try to be rigorously correct, but rather to be
> intuitively understandable by people who may not be programmers or
> have a mathematical background. So "if without then" might not make
> sense to someone who has the "if" syntax burnt into his/her muscle
> memory, but it does make sense if you consider that "if" has a "then"
> block and an "else" block, and "unless" executes the "else" block of
> the condition.
>
> So this is why I asked Richard to review this text and your comments.
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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