Re: Doc(?) bugs in 21.4 (lispref, CCL)
Ar an triú lá de mí na Samhain, scríobh Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson:
[...]
> > And in the context of changing the lispref, is it within the scope of
> > a bugfix to include usage examples for these functions (if I can come
> > up with simple ones)?
>
> For XEmacs 21.5, IMHO the criterion for doc changes is not "is it a
> bugfix", but "is the change likely to confuse users".
>
> For XEmacs 21.4, I suspect that Vin would take usage examples if and
> only if they accompany a bugfix in the docs, but it's entirely up to
> him.
Ok. Everything I'm doing about the lispref also seems to apply to
21.5 too - this section is identical.
I personally don't care if examples never make it to the lispref, I
can always just put them on my blog. It's the erroneous and
misleading docs that I care about.
I’m enthusiastic about (your :) fixing the docs in 21.4, and applying the same
changes to 21.5. I include docstrings in “docs”.
I don’t think that there’s enough of a win for changing code when that code
change is not a clear bugfix.
I'm going to give people a few days to reply to any points
I've
touched upon, before I start to write any more change proposals.
--
‘Tramadol is further fed to cattle […] when working them […] (as draft
animals) so that the animals do not get tired quickly. …’
— Angewandte Chemie, Sept 2014, describing the social context of
(synthetic) tramadol having been found in Cameroon tree roots.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta