Checking the Emacs Lisp manual

Checking the Emacs Lisp manual

[Richard Stallman]

Luc Teirlinck has checked many of the chapters of the Emacs Lisp
manual, but aside from him, hardly any checking has been done.
At this rate, I don't see how we will ever be able to publish it again.

Would other people please join in and help in the checking?

Re: Checking the Emacs Lisp manual

[Richard Stallman]

    Could you tell me a little bit about what sort of checking needs to
    be done? Do you want checks for code functioning correctly, or for
    obvious ommisions or changes in emacs?

That is a good question, so I will send the answer to the list.

The idea is to check the Emacs Lisp Manual, primarily for inaccuracies
(perhaps due to changes in Emacs since the text was updated).  Of
course, I would not mind being informed of other kinds of errors, but
people can spot those without being Emacs experts.  So it makes sense
for Emacs experts to focus on looking for the errors that only Emacs
experts could spot.

Before checking part of the manual, I suggest you refresh your memory
of the changes, by rereading etc/NEWS as far back as Emacs 21.1's
release announcement.

Re: Checking the Emacs Lisp manual

[Nic Ferrier]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     Could you tell me a little bit about what sort of checking needs to
>     be done? Do you want checks for code functioning correctly, or for
>     obvious ommisions or changes in emacs?
> 
> That is a good question, so I will send the answer to the list.
> 
> The idea is to check the Emacs Lisp Manual, primarily for inaccuracies
> (perhaps due to changes in Emacs since the text was updated).  Of
> course, I would not mind being informed of other kinds of errors, but
> people can spot those without being Emacs experts.  So it makes sense
> for Emacs experts to focus on looking for the errors that only Emacs
> experts could spot.
> 
> Before checking part of the manual, I suggest you refresh your memory
> of the changes, by rereading etc/NEWS as far back as Emacs 21.1's
> release announcement.

After some network problems, I'm just at the point where I'm able to
start checking parts of the Emacs Lisp Reference manual.

Is there a list somewhere of what has already been checked? If there
isn't maybe we should add a file to the CVS?


-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk

Re: Checking the Emacs Lisp manual

[Luc Teirlinck]

Nic Ferrier wrote:

    After some network problems, I'm just at the point where I'm able to
    start checking parts of the Emacs Lisp Reference manual.

    Is there a list somewhere of what has already been checked? If there
    isn't maybe we should add a file to the CVS?

I have read or soon will have read all chapters except:

Customization, Advising Functions, Debugging, Command Loop, Keymaps,
Modes, Documentation, Backups and Auto-Saving, Windows, Frames, Text,
Processes, Display , Calendar and System Interface.

I have also read Text up to and including (elisp)Maintaining Undo.

I have not yet installed my planned changes to "Sequences Arrays Vectors",
"Files" and "Buffers", because there still are outstanding issues.
I am waiting for Richard's comments before installing my proposed
(small) changes to the introduction. 

I believe that Richard would like to have at least _double_ coverage
of every section, but due to lack of volunteers, that could be
difficult.  Anyway, the fact that I have already read or am reading a
given section should definitely not keep anybody from double checking
it.

Note that I have found it very useful to do C-h f and C-h v on all
described functions and variables.  When people make changes, they are
supposed to mention them in the NEWS, but in practice, that does
definitely not always happen and sometimes the only record of a very
non-trivial change is in the docstring or the argument list.

Sincerely,

Luc.

Re: Checking the Emacs Lisp manual

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:43:11 -0600 (CST)
> From: Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu>
> 
> I believe that Richard would like to have at least _double_ coverage
> of every section, but due to lack of volunteers, that could be
> difficult.

Yes, we could certainly use more volunteers who would proofread the
manuals.