From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master baf1a7a4a0: Turn gv-synthetic-place into a function Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 19:27:56 +0300 Message-ID: <8335cmvwmr.fsf@gnu.org> References: <835yhkzmn8.fsf@gnu.org> <878rmfx51p.fsf@web.de> <831qs7zj9e.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8piec78.fsf@web.de> <834jx2xphy.fsf@gnu.org> <878rmenmd4.fsf@web.de> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="15554"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 20 23:23:45 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oakiW-0003rt-Kj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 23:23:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55002 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oakiV-0006tk-Jl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 17:23:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41228) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oag6C-0007Fb-Iv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:27:52 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:38358) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oag6B-0001CT-AB; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:27:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=ZYo6IEiBEOu98MfOXkP8VIbXlhFjX01zBYpHUl19C4k=; b=pFLzAmR3DHH9 nzO6x6D6m1HfQA27cjuTNPjb+WG4xpNGST28kkP6nT+HldsozJK5HkxsjN65+5kntwcPZNwxI5pjW XxSDOPH9lHwAWLBurbReBJx337W/jE0kH78i9zFJNSngWvSfWHYpER8q+ol9Lh1reT6okXw/QRaga 4gUEhB2vm9Gee3yFvXJoBdcRu4htluyW64jcBXSaK5+IY9PIe8L6VkjoZCrgqfRVWKZuzpZHXGB9g rBbzYhZwCBomLqzMHFKht/unrt7M+/IeLbDxpJ7WacF3CyVw81B9qzrz94NjKNhFuusZjFc2A8xY6 2D8Ki8B+MJlLu/+ta8+02Q==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=4969 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oag6A-00035B-Jw; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:27:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <878rmenmd4.fsf@web.de> (message from Michael Heerdegen on Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:36:55 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:295836 Archived-At: > From: Michael Heerdegen > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:36:55 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > > > And if this is the same, how about > > > > > > > > This function is only useful when used with generalized variables. > > > > > > I prefer the preposition "in" to "with" which sounds more vague to me. > > > > What does it mean to "use a function in generalized variables"? how do > > you use a function _in_ a variable? > > A generalized variable is a place (form). You use a function in a place > form like you use it in any (normal) form. "Use in a place form" and "use in a place" are very different. The former can be understood and interpreted; the latter is just confusing, because it uses "place", a common word, in a meaning that is completely removed from the "usual" one. I asked you about the meaning of the former, not the latter. > > > Also, some people seem to like saying a function "is" a generalized > > > variable when it has a gv setter. I'm not sure if they would read your > > > version as intended. > > > > Why not? For me, using something "with" something else means "in > > conjunction with". Does the latter also sound problematic to you (and > > if so, why)? If not, maybe having "in conjunction with" could solve > > the issue? > > I just find "in" more precise: The function (call) is an integral part > of the place form, so it's "in" it, textually or syntactically. Its precision matters much less when this stuff is read for the first time, by someone who doesn't yet understand well enough what is this about. What matters then is our ability to explain what we mean without confusing. > English is not my first language, so I hope I'm not on a wrong track, > but for me "in" sounds more appropriate. > If a user reads "in conjunction with" and doesn't know much about > generalized variables, she might wonder "Ok, and how? Can I pass > generalized variables as arguments?". The relation is not as clear as > with "in" IMO. > > I hope you can follow my concerns. Does it make sense to you? I want > to find a wording that potentially leads to as few misinterpretations as > possible. How about the below? This function is only useful when used in conjunction with generalized variables in place forms.