bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Jean Louis]

This is feature request or attempt to make Emacs more beginner
friendly:

When one goes into Info file, there is sentence:

Emacs is the extensible, customizable, self-documenting real-time
display editor.

In my opinion, those terms are special in Emacs, and should be
described as terms in the Glossary section of Emacs Info file.

Jean

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>
> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 19:06:18 +0200
> 
> 
> When one goes into Info file, there is sentence:
> 
> Emacs is the extensible, customizable, self-documenting real-time
> display editor.
> 
> In my opinion, those terms are special in Emacs, and should be
> described as terms in the Glossary section of Emacs Info file.

I don't understand: these terms are explained right there in the
section which starts with that sentence.  Why would we need to explain
them in the Glossary?

I also don't understand how these terms are special in Emacs, I think
we use them in their usual meaning.

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Jean Louis]

* Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> [2020-09-26 20:17]:
> > From: Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>
> > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 19:06:18 +0200
> > 
> > 
> > When one goes into Info file, there is sentence:
> > 
> > Emacs is the extensible, customizable, self-documenting real-time
> > display editor.
> > 
> > In my opinion, those terms are special in Emacs, and should be
> > described as terms in the Glossary section of Emacs Info file.
> 
> I don't understand: these terms are explained right there in the
> section which starts with that sentence.  Why would we need to explain
> them in the Glossary?

By the sole definition of what glossary represents.

> I also don't understand how these terms are special in Emacs, I think
> we use them in their usual meaning.

The Intro section defines the words. Those definitions are definitely
technical, special definitions relating to Emacs, and are special in
Emacs. If you don't see, I cannot help, I see special technical
definitions that relate to Emacs.

Glossary is looked upon at any time. One cannot assume that a
hyperlinked info document is read in some order. Glossary shall
contain all terms and definitions used in the info to help an user
clarify the meanings.

If necessary, just as with other terms, it can point back or hyperlink
to various info sections.

Jean

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Emacs is the extensible, customizable, self-documenting real-time
  > display editor.

Are there any editors in widespread use that are not real-time and
display?  I know some still exist -- for instance, ed -- but perhaps
it is no longer useful to say "real-time display" in that sentence.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Jean Louis]

That is not longer useful, right. 

Only as historical fact, it could be left at some place as a note.

Am September 27, 2020 2:42:47 AM UTC schrieb Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>:
>[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
>[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
>[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>  > Emacs is the extensible, customizable, self-documenting real-time
>  > display editor.
>
>Are there any editors in widespread use that are not real-time and
>display?  I know some still exist -- for instance, ed -- but perhaps
>it is no longer useful to say "real-time display" in that sentence.

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 23:33:29 +0300
> From: Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>
> Cc: 43633@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > > Emacs is the extensible, customizable, self-documenting real-time
> > > display editor.
> > > 
> > > In my opinion, those terms are special in Emacs, and should be
> > > described as terms in the Glossary section of Emacs Info file.
> > 
> > I don't understand: these terms are explained right there in the
> > section which starts with that sentence.  Why would we need to explain
> > them in the Glossary?
> 
> By the sole definition of what glossary represents.

But those terms aren't used anywhere else in the manual, are they?
Actually, "self-documenting" _is_ used elsewhere, but then it's
already in the Glossary.  The rest are used exactly once, in this
section.

So I see no need to change anything in this regard, and I'm closing
this bug report.

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 22:42:47 -0400
> Cc: 43633@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
>   > Emacs is the extensible, customizable, self-documenting real-time
>   > display editor.
> 
> Are there any editors in widespread use that are not real-time and
> display?  I know some still exist -- for instance, ed -- but perhaps
> it is no longer useful to say "real-time display" in that sentence.

The manual text (in "Intro") no longer says "real-time", that was only
left in the sentence that starts the Top node.  I've now made that say
the same as Intro does.

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > The manual text (in "Intro") no longer says "real-time", that was only
  > left in the sentence that starts the Top node.  I've now made that say
  > the same as Intro does.

Thanks.

Should we delete "display" also?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

What do others think?  Should we delete the "display" in "display editor"?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Drew Adams]

> What do others think?  Should we delete the "display" in "display editor"?

Yes.  I don't even know what it means.  A guess is that
a nondisplay editor is one that doesn't use a display
(e.g., monitor) - like old teletype line-oriented editors.
I guess `ed' or `sed' would be an example of a nondisplay
editor.

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Cc: 43633@debbugs.gnu.org, bugs@gnu.support
> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 23:44:49 -0400
> 
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
>   > The manual text (in "Intro") no longer says "real-time", that was only
>   > left in the sentence that starts the Top node.  I've now made that say
>   > the same as Intro does.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Should we delete "display" also?

We did.  The whole "real-time display" part was deleted.

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 23:47:39 -0400
> Cc: 43633@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> What do others think?  Should we delete the "display" in "display editor"?

It was already deleted.

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Jean Louis]

* Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> [2020-09-28 06:48]:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> 
> What do others think?  Should we delete the "display" in "display
> editor"?

Yes. It is obsolete today.

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Jean Louis]

* Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> [2020-09-28 07:58]:
> > What do others think?  Should we delete the "display" in "display editor"?
> 
> Yes.  I don't even know what it means.  A guess is that
> a nondisplay editor is one that doesn't use a display
> (e.g., monitor) - like old teletype line-oriented editors.
> I guess `ed' or `sed' would be an example of a nondisplay
> editor.

Yes. I think so.

I remember that first computers did not have monitors. Calculations
have been entered on keyboard on a large box kind of a table
(computer) and output went to printer, the printer was printing all
the time. One could make nice Betty Boop pictures and other erotic
cartoons all made out of letters and numbers. I am sure that some type
of editor existed back at that time.

But the word "display" may not be directly related to monitor, rather
to simple displaying, as full term was "real-time display" which would
mean, it changes text in the moment when you see it being changed and
it displays text in the moment when you have changed it.

Then when monitors arrived, there were probably editors like stream
editor sed or ed as line editor, I ma just guessing, and the standard
GNU line editor "ed"

If I wish to edit with "ed" I would say:

$ ed file

but then nothing would happen, nothing would be displayed. I would
need to do something like:

i
New line written here
.
w
22
q

then the line "New line written here" would be in the file, as I saved
it with "w" for 22 bytes, and quit with "q"

Now, at the moment of writin the "New line written here", the line was
maybe part of the text, I do not know, but it was not displayed in
real time.

Thus "real time display" editor is (probably) comparison to line
editors. This comparison was useful back in time, today it is hard to
explain to people.

Jean

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Juri Linkov]

> If I wish to edit with "ed" I would say:
>
> $ ed file
>
> but then nothing would happen, nothing would be displayed. I would
> need to do something like:
>
> i
> New line written here
> .
> w
> 22
> q
>
> then the line "New line written here" would be in the file, as I saved
> it with "w" for 22 bytes, and quit with "q"

Indeed, and 'ed' is still relevant today on minimized distributions
where only 'ed' is available for editing (that even don't provide 'vi').

> Thus "real time display" editor is (probably) comparison to line
> editors. This comparison was useful back in time, today it is hard to
> explain to people.

Emacs can't be described as "real-time" because it doesn't meet the demands of
real-time systems according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing
that at least require deterministic garbage collection.

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Jean Louis]

* Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> [2020-09-30 22:19]:
> > If I wish to edit with "ed" I would say:
> >
> > $ ed file
> >
> > but then nothing would happen, nothing would be displayed. I would
> > need to do something like:
> >
> > i
> > New line written here
> > .
> > w
> > 22
> > q
> >
> > then the line "New line written here" would be in the file, as I saved
> > it with "w" for 22 bytes, and quit with "q"
> 
> Indeed, and 'ed' is still relevant today on minimized distributions
> where only 'ed' is available for editing (that even don't provide 'vi').
> 
> > Thus "real time display" editor is (probably) comparison to line
> > editors. This comparison was useful back in time, today it is hard to
> > explain to people.
> 
> Emacs can't be described as "real-time" because it doesn't meet the demands of
> real-time systems according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing
> that at least require deterministic garbage collection.

Terms and words have different definitions and the definition depends
of the context.

For me, Emacs is real time, but in the context of above mentioned
"real time computing" Emacs may not be real time computing.

From Wordnet dictionary:

* Overview of noun real_time

The noun real time has 2 senses (no senses from tagged texts)
1. real time -- (the actual time that it takes a process to occur; "information is updated in real time")
2. real time -- ((computer science) the time it takes for a process under computer control to occur)

Obviously there are different context, and there may be other
definitions, so Emacs is real time for the user. The context of "real
time display" was related to "ed", and not to real time computing in
computer science.

Is it not so?

Jean

bug#43633: 28.0.50; Include definitions in glossary for: extensible, customizable, self-documenting, real-time display editor

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Emacs can't be described as "real-time"

In the editor context, it means that the editor displays the results of each
editing command right away.

                                            because it doesn't meet
  > the demands of real-time systems according to
  > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing

That definition is not pertinent here.

However, we already deleted that term from the Emacs documentation,
so let's stop arguing about it on this list.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)