Re: [R21.4] [COMMIT] Update glyph documentation
Ben Wing <ben(a)xemacs.org> writes:
NOTE: This patch has been committed.
This is an attempt to update the documentation in glyphs.el to
correspond to what David has asked for.
I seem to have a spectacularly bad command of language: what I asked
for was to document the return value of make-glyph, maybe a two-line
change. A wish that has seemingly not made it into the multi-hundred
line change.
In order to not appear ungrateful, let me point out that the patch
contains _lots_ of lines in doc strings where a lisp-quoted symbol
gets replaced by some not so very convincingly quoted contraption,
like
Index: lisp/glyphs.el
===================================================================
RCS file: /pack/xemacscvs/XEmacs/xemacs/lisp/glyphs.el,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -p -r1.7 glyphs.el
--- lisp/glyphs.el 2001/04/12 18:21:21 1.7
+++ lisp/glyphs.el 2005/02/22 04:58:49
[...]
-HOW-TO-ADD should be either nil or one of the symbols 'prepend,
- 'append, 'remove-tag-set-prepend, 'remove-tag-set-append,
'remove-locale,
- 'remove-locale-type, or 'remove-all. See `copy-specifier' and
+HOW-TO-ADD should be either nil or one of the symbols `prepend',
+ `append', `remove-tag-set-prepend', `remove-tag-set-append',
`remove-locale',
+ `remove-locale-type', or `remove-all.' See `copy-specifier' and
In particular placing the period inside of the quotes for a quoted
Lisp symbol does not appear like a reasonable convention to me.
Other instances like
- will be added, and defaults to 'global.
+ will be added, and defaults to `global.'
are present, too. Its consistency suggest that it should probably be
intentional. Are there any stylistic conventions that would recommend
that?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum