From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Predicate for true lists Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2019 22:39:29 +0300 Message-ID: <83sgub87wu.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87fu3vdjjk.fsf@tcd.ie> <87in6xgtpb.fsf@tcd.ie> <2af892df-26cb-60b2-4fd8-067fcb3d32e9@cs.ucla.edu> <87r2kh9uwx.fsf@tcd.ie> <83h8lcnbxb.fsf@gnu.org> <87sh4s9poo.fsf@tcd.ie> <87k1q49p0i.fsf@tcd.ie> <87efgbbq2p.fsf@tcd.ie> <87a7gz8hp2.fsf@tcd.ie> <875zrn9bum.fsf@tcd.ie> <835zrm7fow.fsf@gnu.org> <878swivtcr.fsf@gmail.com> <87r2aayln2.fsf@tcd.ie> <87lg0hyidf.fsf@tcd.ie> <87tvew7bxj.fsf@tcd.ie> <83a7gne5w8.fsf@gnu.org> <87h8argqhu.fsf@tcd.ie> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="249147"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: branham@utexas.edu, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, drew.adams@oracle.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Basil L. Contovounesios" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 21 21:40:22 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hIIK4-0012hP-GU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Apr 2019 21:40:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56424 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hIIK3-0003Mm-Gh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Apr 2019 15:40:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55347) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hIIJx-0003Me-BM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Apr 2019 15:40:14 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:55345) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hIIJw-0004Cg-Nb; Sun, 21 Apr 2019 15:40:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1361 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hIIJu-0000It-5u; Sun, 21 Apr 2019 15:40:12 -0400 In-reply-to: <87h8argqhu.fsf@tcd.ie> (contovob@tcd.ie) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:235734 Archived-At: > From: "Basil L. Contovounesios" > Cc: , , , > Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2019 19:30:53 +0100 > > > The index entry "side effect" here means that this term is explained. > > But the text doesn't live up to that promise, it just gives an > > example. Can we add a more general explanation? > > Sorry, I think I misunderstood how these indices work, and was using > them to label relevant parts of the documentation, which should probably > be done with cross-references instead. If text just mentions a term, but doesn't intend to explain it, it should indeed provide a cross-reference to where the term is explained/defined. > The phrase "side effect" is actually defined under (info "(elisp) Intro > Eval"), so I will remove this index entry. Is the definition there > satisfactory and general enough? Yes, I think so. > Either way, can the explanation of side effects in (info "(elisp) What > Is a Function") remain as it is, perhaps with a cross-reference to the > definition in (info "(elisp) Intro Eval")? Yes, with a cross-reference. > >> --- a/doc/lispref/symbols.texi > >> +++ b/doc/lispref/symbols.texi > >> @@ -558,9 +558,12 @@ Standard Properties > >> modes. @xref{Setting Hooks}. > >> > >> @item pure > >> +@cindex @code{pure} > > > > Likewise. > > This is where the property is defined. If property names are not > usually indexed, I can remove this index entry. Otherwise, is the > following qualification OK? > > @cindex @code{pure} property Yes, this is fine. Thanks.