Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

[Lute Kamstra <Lute.Kamstra.lists@xs4all.nl>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Why not let the edition of the manual equal the version of Emacs?
>
> I think that's because not every version of Emacs automatically causes
> a new edition of the manual to be printed by the FSF.  Producing a
> printed manual for sale in bookstores is a costly process; I think the
> FSF only does that from time to time, not when a new Emacs version is
> released.

So the edition is only increased when the manual is printed by the
FSF?  That means that different versions of the manual can have the
same edition number.  Isn't that confusing?

>> When you see edition 2.5 of the Lisp manual, that probably doesn't
>> tell you much.
>
> It tells me that it is different from an older edition if that older
> edition's number is different.  The same as when you see a book named
> "The Great Foo Bar Book, second edition".

You just explained that, for electronic versions of the manual, the
edition number could be the same while the manuals differ.  That makes
the edition number even less meaningful.

>> The first thing you will do is figure out to which Emacs version
>> that corresponds.
>
> That's why the title page says:
>
>   @titlepage
>   @sp 6
>   @center @titlefont{GNU Emacs Manual}
>   @sp 4
>   @center @value{EDITION} Edition, Updated for Emacs Version @value{EMACSVER}.
>
> That is, the relevant Emacs version appears right next to the manual's
> edition.  No need to go hunting for it.

I didn't mean to imply that it's hard to figure out to which version
of Emacs the manual corresponds, just that the Emacs version is more
meaningful than the edition number.

Lute.