Re: miss spell in `accept-process-output' doc string
I added `iff' to the Glossary. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: miss spell in `accept-process-output' doc string
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:46:04 +0200 martin rudalics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>Now that I think about it, I realize that many Emacs users have not studied >>>the advanced mathematics where they would encounter the term "iff". >>>So I think it is better to avoid that term. >>> >>>(I was the one who introduced it into Emacs doc strings.) >> >> >> I have added this to TODO for fixing post-22 release. >> >> ** Avoid using "iff" in doc strings. > > Even advanced mathematical textbooks usually explain this in an initial > section. Maybe we could add a definition in the manuals. How about in (emacs)Glossary and in (elisp)Documentation Basics ? Steve Berman ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: miss spell in `accept-process-output' doc string
Now that I think about it, I realize that many Emacs users have not studied the advanced mathematics where they would encounter the term "iff". So I think it is better to avoid that term. (I was the one who introduced it into Emacs doc strings.) I have added this to TODO for fixing post-22 release. ** Avoid using "iff" in doc strings. Even advanced mathematical textbooks usually explain this in an initial section. Maybe we could add a definition in the manuals. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: miss spell in `accept-process-output' doc string
Richard Matthew Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The "iff" idiom is sufficiently common that we don't want to shy away > from it just at this one place. So either we rule it out everywhere, or > we > use it liberally. > > Now that I think about it, I realize that many Emacs users have not studied > the advanced mathematics where they would encounter the term "iff". > So I think it is better to avoid that term. > > (I was the one who introduced it into Emacs doc strings.) I have added this to TODO for fixing post-22 release. ** Avoid using "iff" in doc strings. -- Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cua.dk ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: miss spell in `accept-process-output' doc string
The "iff" idiom is sufficiently common that we don't want to shy away from it just at this one place. So either we rule it out everywhere, or we use it liberally. Now that I think about it, I realize that many Emacs users have not studied the advanced mathematics where they would encounter the term "iff". So I think it is better to avoid that term. (I was the one who introduced it into Emacs doc strings.) ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: miss spell in `accept-process-output' doc string
>> The "iff" idiom is sufficiently common that we don't want to shy >> away from it just at this one place. So either we rule it out >> everywhere, or we use it liberally. > Sufficiently common in Emacs (~ 600 instances); I've never seen it > anywhere else as far as I remember. AFAIK it's pretty standard in math and logic. In French we similarly use "ssi" for "si et seulement si". Stefan ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: miss spell in `accept-process-output' doc string
Glenn Morris wrote: Stefan Monnier wrote: The "iff" idiom is sufficiently common that we don't want to shy away from it just at this one place. So either we rule it out everywhere, or we use it liberally. Sufficiently common in Emacs (~ 600 instances); I've never seen it anywhere else as far as I remember. All it does is save some typing at the expense of confusing people from time to time. Personally, I think it should not be used. I believe it is understandable to people used to math and logics, but the very bad thing about it is that in the context of more normal English text (like a doc string) it may very well be taken for a misspelling of "if". ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: miss spell in `accept-process-output' doc string
Stefan Monnier wrote: > The "iff" idiom is sufficiently common that we don't want to shy > away from it just at this one place. So either we rule it out > everywhere, or we use it liberally. Sufficiently common in Emacs (~ 600 instances); I've never seen it anywhere else as far as I remember. All it does is save some typing at the expense of confusing people from time to time. Personally, I think it should not be used. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: miss spell in `accept-process-output' doc string
> "iff" stands for "if and only if" but maybe > "Return non-nil if and only if we received output before the timeout expired." > would be more comprehensible. The "iff" idiom is sufficiently common that we don't want to shy away from it just at this one place. So either we rule it out everywhere, or we use it liberally. Stefan ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: miss spell in `accept-process-output' doc string
Thanks for suggestion. > [Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:21:12 +0200] > martin rudalics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Current CVS head. > > > > The last line of `accept-process-output' doc string says: > > > > > >>Return non-nil iff we received any output before the timeout expired. > > > > > > There is a miss spell. > "iff" stands for "if and only if" but maybe > "Return non-nil if and only if we received output before the timeout expired." > would be more comprehensible. So "iff" might be widely accepted, I guess. IMHO some users may appreciate description like one in elisp manual. The function `accept-process-output' returns non-`nil' if it did get some output, or `nil' if the timeout expired before output arrived. (Now I know the current doc string is all right, please just ignore.) Thanks. -- Tetsuo Tsukamoto ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
Re: miss spell in `accept-process-output' doc string
Current CVS head. The last line of `accept-process-output' doc string says: Return non-nil iff we received any output before the timeout expired. There is a miss spell. "iff" stands for "if and only if" but maybe "Return non-nil if and only if we received output before the timeout expired." would be more comprehensible. ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
miss spell in `accept-process-output' doc string
Current CVS head. The last line of `accept-process-output' doc string says: > Return non-nil iff we received any output before the timeout expired. There is a miss spell. -- Tetsuo Tsukamoto ___ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
