bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable

bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable

[Drew Adams]

Emacs manual, node Directory Variables.
Please change "unwriteable" to "unwritable".
 
Not very important, since this is just an invented name in an example,
but it can lead users to think that's the spelling and thus to look
for such a term in the future.  Googling shows that similar bugs have
been logged for Scheme, Python, man pages, and elsewhere.
 
FWIW, for example, from
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=13363:
 
,----
|  In any case "writEable" is an error: 
| 
|  % echo writable | ispell -l -d american | ispell -l -d british ;echo $? 
|  0 # no output, it's correct. 
|  % echo writeable | ispell -l -d american | ispell -l -d british ;echo $? 
|  writeable # not in dictionaries. 
|  0
| 
|  ...
| 
|  If doubt remains, see also this search for 'writable': 
|  http://www.onelook.com/?w=writable&ls=a 
|  ...which returns: 
| 
|  We found 7 dictionaries with English definitions that include the word
writable: 
| 
|  General dictionaries General (7 matching dictionaries) 
|  1. writable : Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition [home, info] 
|  2. writable : The American Heritage=ae Dictionary of the English Language
[home, info] 
|  3. writable : Dictionary.com [home, info] 
|  4. writable : UltraLingua English Dictionary [home, info] 
|  5. Writable : Online Plain Text English Dictionary [home, info] 
|  6. writable : Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition [home, info] 
|  7. Writable : AllWords.com Multi-Lingual Dictionary [home, info]
`----

In GNU Emacs 23.0.60.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2008-11-24 on LENNART-69DE564
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4) --no-opt --cflags -Ic:/g/include
-fno-crossjumping'
 

bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable

[Stephen Berman]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:02:39 -0800 "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:

> Emacs manual, node Directory Variables.
> Please change "unwriteable" to "unwritable".
>  
> Not very important, since this is just an invented name in an example,
> but it can lead users to think that's the spelling and thus to look
> for such a term in the future.  Googling shows that similar bugs have
> been logged for Scheme, Python, man pages, and elsewhere.

Code is probably not as liable to influence spelling as documentation,
but FWIW:

-*- mode: grep; default-directory: "/Users/steve/cvsroot/emacs/" -*-
Grep started at Wed Dec  3 00:40:12

find . \( -path \*/SCCS -o -path \*/RCS -o -path \*/CVS -o -path \*/MCVS -o -path \*/.svn -o -path \*/.git -o -path \*/.hg -o -path \*/.bzr -o -path \*/_MTN -o -path \*/_darcs -o -path \*/\{arch\} \) -prune -o  -type f \( -name \* \) -print0 | xargs -0 -e grep -i -nH -e writeable
./etc/NEWS.21:1682:"cvs edit" to make files writeable; it defaults to `t'.  (This option
./info/emacs-5:5371:could apply settings to an unwriteable directory this way:
./info/emacs-5:5373:     (dir-locals-set-class-variables 'unwriteable-directory
./info/emacs-5:5377:        "/usr/include/" 'unwriteable-directory)
./lisp/erc/ChangeLog.03:840:	(erc-directory-writeable-p): create directory if it doesn't exist, check if
./lisp/erc/ChangeLog.03:841:	    it's writeable
./lisp/erc/erc-log.el:317:is writeable (it will be created as necessary) and
Binary file ./lisp/erc/erc-log.elc matches
./lisp/loaddefs.el:9236:is writeable (it will be created as necessary) and
./lisp/ChangeLog.10:2443:	(gdb-display-end): Only make buffer writeable temporarily.
./lisp/ChangeLog.3:1908:	them without locking the few that should stay writeable.
./lisp/ChangeLog.3:2281:	(vc-checkout-writeable-buffer-hook): New var.
./lisp/ChangeLog.8:5519:	writeable with "cvs edit", call "cvs unedit" to undo that.
Binary file ./lisp/vc-hooks.elc matches
./lisp/progmodes/cc-defs.el:409:known to be writeable.  That way, these text properties remain set
Binary file ./lisp/progmodes/cc-defs.elc matches
./lisp/progmodes/cpp.el:104:			       (const :tag "False branch writeable" nil)
./lisp/progmodes/cpp.el:105:			       (const :tag "Both branches writeable" both))))
Binary file ./lisp/progmodes/cpp.elc matches
./lisp/files.el:245:file is being saved is not writeable, Emacs may ignore a non-nil value
./lisp/files.el:262:itself writeable, then error instead of saving in some
./lisp/generic-x.el:1315:    "DIR_WRITEABLE"
./lisp/ldefs-boot.el:9227:is writeable (it will be created as necessary) and
Binary file ./lisp/generic-x.elc matches
./lisp/vc-hooks.el:423:  'implicit   FILES are always writeable, and checked out `implicitly'
./lisp/vc-svn.el:414:uses locally for temp files must also be writeable by you on that host.
Binary file ./lisp/files.elc matches
Binary file ./lisp/vc-svn.elc matches
./lisp/ChangeLog.13:14945:	ldefs-boot.el, make sure loaddefs.el is writeable.
./doc/emacs/custom.texi:1309:example, you could apply settings to an unwriteable directory this
./doc/emacs/custom.texi:1313:(dir-locals-set-class-variables 'unwriteable-directory
./doc/emacs/custom.texi:1317:   "/usr/include/" 'unwriteable-directory)
./ChangeLog:7146:	trying to make final targets writeable first, since it won't
./src/ChangeLog.4:3398:	(Ffile_writeable_p) [MSDOS]: Don't call access with file name ending
./src/ChangeLog.6:3001:	* sysdep.c (WRITABLE): Renamed from WRITEABLE.

Grep finished (matches found) at Wed Dec  3 00:40:35


In GNU Emacs 23.0.60.20 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.12.9) of
2008-12-02 on escher

Steve Berman

bug#1476: marked as done (23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable)

[Emacs bug Tracking System]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 872 bytes --]


Your message dated Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:29:53 -0500
with message-id <878wqykkb2.fsf@cyd.mit.edu>
and subject line 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable
has caused the Emacs bug report #1476,
regarding 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact don@donarmstrong.com
immediately.)


-- 
1476: http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1476
Emacs Bug Tracking System
Contact don@donarmstrong.com with problems

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 4373 bytes --]

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>
To: <emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org>
Subject: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:02:39 -0800
Message-ID: <001601c954d2$1362b0b0$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com>

Emacs manual, node Directory Variables.
Please change "unwriteable" to "unwritable".
 
Not very important, since this is just an invented name in an example,
but it can lead users to think that's the spelling and thus to look
for such a term in the future.  Googling shows that similar bugs have
been logged for Scheme, Python, man pages, and elsewhere.
 
FWIW, for example, from
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=13363:
 
,----
|  In any case "writEable" is an error: 
| 
|  % echo writable | ispell -l -d american | ispell -l -d british ;echo $? 
|  0 # no output, it's correct. 
|  % echo writeable | ispell -l -d american | ispell -l -d british ;echo $? 
|  writeable # not in dictionaries. 
|  0
| 
|  ...
| 
|  If doubt remains, see also this search for 'writable': 
|  http://www.onelook.com/?w=writable&ls=a 
|  ...which returns: 
| 
|  We found 7 dictionaries with English definitions that include the word
writable: 
| 
|  General dictionaries General (7 matching dictionaries) 
|  1. writable : Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition [home, info] 
|  2. writable : The American Heritage=ae Dictionary of the English Language
[home, info] 
|  3. writable : Dictionary.com [home, info] 
|  4. writable : UltraLingua English Dictionary [home, info] 
|  5. Writable : Online Plain Text English Dictionary [home, info] 
|  6. writable : Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition [home, info] 
|  7. Writable : AllWords.com Multi-Lingual Dictionary [home, info]
`----

In GNU Emacs 23.0.60.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2008-11-24 on LENNART-69DE564
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (3.4) --no-opt --cflags -Ic:/g/include
-fno-crossjumping'
 




[-- Attachment #3: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1129 bytes --]

From: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>
To: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>
Cc: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net>, 1476-done@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
Subject: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:29:53 -0500
Message-ID: <878wqykkb2.fsf@cyd.mit.edu>

I've checked in the speling fixes to the elisp and manual files, thanks.
(I didn't bother fixing the Changelog files).

bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable

[Lawrence Mitchell]

Drew Adams wrote:
> Emacs manual, node Directory Variables.
> Please change "unwriteable" to "unwritable".

> Not very important, since this is just an invented name in an example,
> but it can lead users to think that's the spelling and thus to look
> for such a term in the future.  Googling shows that similar bugs have
> been logged for Scheme, Python, man pages, and elsewhere.

FWIW the OED says both are fine:

writable, a.
  Also writeable.

Lawrence
-- 
Lawrence Mitchell <wence@gmx.li>

bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable

[Drew Adams]

> > Emacs manual, node Directory Variables.
> > Please change "unwriteable" to "unwritable".
> 
> > Not very important, since this is just an invented name in 
> > an example, but it can lead users to think that's the spelling
> > and thus to look for such a term in the future.  Googling shows
> > that similar bugs have been logged for Scheme, Python, man
> > pages, and elsewhere.
> 
> FWIW the OED says both are fine: writable, a. Also writeable.

English has no equivalent of l'Academie Francaise, and that includes the OED.

It's about general usage, in practice. Whether "both are fine" is really beside
the point. There are lots of English expressions that are fine or that are used
in some contexts by some people, but which if used generally will get you stares
of incomprehensibility most of the time.

"writeable" is relatively little used, which means that users who go looking for
matches for "writeable" will generally be handicapped wrt what they find.

Please see the bugs I referenced for other software, or google for yourself, to
see how others are handling this. Again, maybe everyone in the world is wrong,
but it's about helping users find what they need.

Google, BTW, is smart enough to return "writable" hits for a "writeable" query,
but grep, Emacs search, etc. are less forgiving.

Again though, not the most important bug.

bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable

[Lawrence Mitchell]

Drew Adams wrote:

>>> Emacs manual, node Directory Variables.
>>> Please change "unwriteable" to "unwritable".

>>> Not very important, since this is just an invented name in
>>> an example, but it can lead users to think that's the spelling
>>> and thus to look for such a term in the future.  Googling shows
>>> that similar bugs have been logged for Scheme, Python, man
>>> pages, and elsewhere.

>> FWIW the OED says both are fine: writable, a. Also writeable.

>  English has no equivalent of l'Academie Francaise, and that includes
>  the OED.

Of this I am well aware, however, the OED's quotations for both forms
do not have writeable as an obsolete variant.

>  It's about general usage, in practice. Whether "both are fine" is
>  really beside the point. There are lots of English expressions that
>  are fine or that are used in some contexts by some people, but which
>  if used generally will get you stares of incomprehensibility most of
>  the time.

>  "writeable" is relatively little used,

If you're willing to believe that the internet is a reasonable corpus,
this is not a true statement:

~ 1e6 results for writeable
~ 3e6 results for writable

Emacs should certainly standardise on one or other of the two
variants, but it's not as obviously clearcut as you make out.

Lawrence

-- 
Lawrence Mitchell <wence@gmx.li>

bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 14:43, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:

> It's about general usage, in practice. Whether "both are fine" is really beside
> the point.

Googling for "writable -writeable" gets about 2,6 Mhits, while
"writeable -writable" gets around 0,9 Mhits. Fewer, but still sizable.
I don't think anyone has trouble understanding "writeable".

             Juanma

bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable

[Jason Rumney]

Drew Adams wrote:
> English has no equivalent of l'Academie Francaise, and that includes the OED.
>   

I'd sooner believe the OED's opinion on spelling than Drew Adams's.

bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be(un)writable

[Drew Adams]

> >> FWIW the OED says both are fine: writable, a. Also writeable.
> 
> > English has no equivalent of l'Academie Francaise, and 
> > that includes the OED.
> 
> Of this I am well aware, however, the OED's quotations for both forms
> do not have writeable as an obsolete variant.

No one said that "writeable" is obsolete. I said it's not helpful to users who
might search for it with grep and Emacs search.

> If you're willing to believe that the internet is a reasonable corpus,
> this is not a true statement:
> 
> ~ 1e6 results for writeable
> ~ 3e6 results for writable
> 
> Emacs should certainly standardise on one or other of the two
> variants, but it's not as obviously clearcut as you make out.

We agree Emacs should standardize. Would you have Emacs standardize on
"writeable"? Should GNU man pages then switch and do the same?

bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable

[Drew Adams]

> > It's about general usage, in practice. Whether "both are 
> > fine" is really beside the point.
> 
> Googling for "writable -writeable" gets about 2,6 Mhits, while
> "writeable -writable" gets around 0,9 Mhits. Fewer, but still sizable.

Yes, and googling for "labour -labor" gets 56.4 million, versus 173 million for
"labor -labour". Only about three to one.

But Emacs has standardized on American spelling. American usage generally drops
a final "e" when adding suffix "able".

Here is a bit from the Cambridge Guide to Australian English Usage:

-eable  This ending is really a composite of the final e of a root word and the
-able suffix. It is a matter of necessity for some words, and of choice for
others. It is the necessary ending for words such as changeable and traceable,
because -eable serves to preserve the "j" or "s" sounnd in them (see -ce/-ge).
But for others such as lik(e)able, liv(e)able, siz(e)able and us(e)able, it's
possible to use either -eable or just -able. Broadly speaking, the Oxford
Dictionary tradition maintains the first spelling (except for usable), while
American English (Webster's 1986) is squarely behind the second. It is more in
line with the major rule over dropping fine e (see e)...

For more of the quote:
http://books.google.com/books?id=nV8h0gnU1UEC&pg=RA1-PA237&lpg=RA1-PA237&dq=suff
ix+eable+able+spelling&source=web&ots=ztUmc45nwi&sig=YnjusFpRwdJo9_eQm8aCPrlBheo
&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result

> I don't think anyone has trouble understanding "writeable".

No, of course not. That's not the point.

bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 16:03, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:

> But Emacs has standardized on American spelling. American usage generally drops
> a final "e" when adding suffix "able".

If that is your argument (and I'm OK with it, BTW), you should have
said so, and not pass one of the alternatives as less correct, or
uncommon, or obsolete.

    Juanma

bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable

[Drew Adams]

> > English has no equivalent of l'Academie Francaise, and that 
> > includes the OED.
> 
> I'd sooner believe the OED's opinion on spelling than Drew Adams's.

So would I. ;-)

In this case, the two opinions about "writeable" are the same, however: both
spellings are English.

The OED did not speak to whether _Emacs_ should use "writeable", did it? That is
the question. Emacs tries to be internally consistent and consistent with common
usage. It standardizes on American spelling for its internal consistency. AFAIK.

And it's right to do that, because that is most helpful to most users around the
world...for now. That will no doubt change with time, but for the moment it is
American spelling that is closest to international (esp. business and technical)
English usage. And my guess is that American usage is overwhelmingly used in
English software documentation. 

But hang in there - the sun will set on the American Empire also.

bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable

[Drew Adams]

> > But Emacs has standardized on American spelling. American 
> > usage generally drops a final "e" when adding suffix "able".
> 
> If that is your argument (and I'm OK with it, BTW), you should have
> said so, and not pass one of the alternatives as less correct, or
> uncommon, or obsolete.

I took it as understood that Emacs uses American spelling (we've been through
that before, right Juanma?). And I never said that "writeable" was obsolete.

"Writeable" is less correct _for Emacs_, because Emacs tries to adopt common
usage and American spelling.

I specifically cited other software bug reports for "writeable" and argued for
consistency on that basis. IOW, it's not just American usage; it is a more
common usage (as you yourself showed using Google), and especially so in
software.

I quoted the `findutils' bug that showed that `ispell' doesn't recognize
"writeable". It is `ispell' that passed "writeable" off as less correct.

Support by software tools is the kind of thing that should be important to us,
not whether OED finds that it's OK to use either spelling. This is not about OED
vs Webster's or the Brits vs the Yanks. It's about helping Emacs users.

My argument from the beginning (see the bug report) was that "writeable" is less
helpful because Emacs users looking for it (e.g. with grep, ispell, Emacs
search) will be less likely to find it.

bug#1476: 23.0.60; spelling of (un)writeable should be (un)writable

[Stefan Monnier]

> FWIW the OED says both are fine:

That doesn't make it undesriable to try and only use one of the two.
`grep' seems to indicate that `writable' is used a lot more right now
in Emacs.  Google seems to think that the same is true for the part of
the Internet about which it cares.
So I agree that it's good to change occurences of "writeable" to
"writable".

It's not a high priority, tho.  So let's only do it when it's easy and
harmless (e.g. not for global variables and things like that).


        Stefan