Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

2005-06-10 Thread Richard Stallman
> And if we think it could confuse, we could remove the edition from > this sentence. I'm in favor of that. What about the patch below? I don't think there is any problem here. Please don't change it further. Please let's not spend any more time discussing this. _

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

2005-06-10 Thread Lute Kamstra
Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> From: Lute Kamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:34:34 +0200 >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> > As long as the manual is not printed, who would see the edition >> > number? >> >> C-h i m elisp RET shows me: >> >>This Info file

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

2005-06-09 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> From: Lute Kamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:34:34 +0200 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > As long as the manual is not printed, who would see the edition > > number? > > C-h i m elisp RET shows me: > >This Info file contains edition 2.9 of the GNU Emacs Lisp Reference

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

2005-06-09 Thread Lute Kamstra
Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> So the edition is only increased when the manual is printed by the >> FSF? That means that different versions of the manual can have the >> same edition number. Isn't that confusing? > > As long as the manual is not printed, who would see the edition

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

2005-06-09 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Lute Kamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 10:44:01 +0200 > > So the edition is only increased when the manual is printed by the > FSF? That means that different versions of the manual can have the > same edition number. Isn't that confusing? As

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

2005-06-09 Thread Richard Stallman
Why not let the edition of the manual equal the version of Emacs? They do not necessarily correspond in a simple way. I'm not going to change this, so please drop the issue. ___ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/ma

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

2005-06-09 Thread Lute Kamstra
Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Why not let the edition of the manual equal the version of Emacs? > > I think that's because not every version of Emacs automatically causes > a new edition of the manual to be printed by the FSF. Producing a > printed manual for sale in bookstores is

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

2005-06-08 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Lute Kamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:40:50 +0200 > > Why not let the edition of the manual equal the version of Emacs? I think that's because not every version of Emacs automatically causes a new edition of the manual to be printed by the

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

2005-06-08 Thread Lute Kamstra
Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> From: Lute Kamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:49:16 +0200 >> >> The Lisp Manual has its own version number (2.9 currently). Does this >> serve any purpose now that we release it together with Emacs? Why not >> remove the version

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

2005-06-08 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> From: Lute Kamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:49:16 +0200 > > The Lisp Manual has its own version number (2.9 currently). Does this > serve any purpose now that we release it together with Emacs? Why not > remove the version number and just say that it is the Lisp Manual >

Version of the Lisp Manual.

2005-06-08 Thread Lute Kamstra
The Lisp Manual has its own version number (2.9 currently). Does this serve any purpose now that we release it together with Emacs? Why not remove the version number and just say that it is the Lisp Manual corresponding to Emacs version so-and-so? Lute.