Eli Zaretskii writes: > Please remember this when we discuss use of functions in user-level > features, such as values for user options. Yes, I actually mostly agree with you on that point already. Thank you for your very helpful comments. I tried fixing them in the attached patch. >> +@code{make-vector} properly, type @kbd{C-h f make-vector >> +@key{RET}}. > > When a long text in |@kbd (or any other Texinfo markup) is near a > line's end, it is better to wrap it in @w{..}, so that it won't be > broken in half by the end of line. I tried wrapping it in @w{..} but I wasn't able to get it to avoid line breaks. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but I tried fixing these cases manually for now. >> + (unless (and fn (symbolp fn)) >> + (user-error "You didn't specify a function symbol")) >> + (unless (or (fboundp fn) (get fn 'function-documentation)) >> + (user-error "Symbol's function definition is void: %s" fn)) > > These messages say "function" regardless of whether the user typed > "C-h x" or "C-h f". Is that optimal? Hmm, good point. I made an attempt at making this more user-friendly and less technical in the attached patch by introducing two new messages: 1. "You didn't specify a valid command name" 2. "No such command: %s" WDYT? Hmm, but now that I'm testing this, I'm not sure how to arrive at these messages from `C-h x'. I just get a "no match" message for anything that is not a valid command name. So can you reach this only from Lisp or something? Should the more technical explanations therefore stay?