> On 2017/05/19, at 22:30, Stephen Berman wrote: > > On Fri, 19 May 2017 15:56:41 +0300 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >>> From: Jean-Christophe Helary >>> Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 21:23:57 +0900 >>> Cc: 26925-done@debbugs.gnu.org >>> >>>> One nit: please don't refer to functions with syntax that looks like a >>>> function call, as in (split-string) above, or foo() for C sources. >>>> The GNU Coding Standards frown on such references, because they look >>>> like a call to a function with no arguments, which is not what is >>>> meant there. We use 'split-string' and 'foo' instead, i.e. the name >>>> of the function in quotes. >>> >>> Thank you Eli. >>> >>> So the function name should have been quoted in both occurrences? >>> >>>>> =========================== >>>>> Improve documentation of 'split-string' >>>>> >>>>> * /doc/lispref/strings.texi 'split-string': change paragraph >>>>> order to improve readability. >>>>> =========================== >> >> No, only in the first occurrence. In the ChangeLog-style entries, we >> always put function names in parentheses. > > Yes for code ChangeLogs, but for the Texinfo sources, the convention for > ChangeLog entries seems to be to put the node name in parentheses, and > then the function name would be quoted in the entry, as usual, e.g.: > > * doc/lispref/strings.texi (Creating Strings): Change paragraph > order of `split-string' definition to improve readability. > > This convention of putting the node name in parens is apparently > undocumented, but it's what `C-x 4 a' does and (probably that's why) > almost all the ChangeLog entries for the Texinfo sources follow it. > > Steve Berman