Version of the Lisp Manual.

Version of the Lisp Manual.

[Lute Kamstra]

The Lisp Manual has its own version number (2.9 currently).  Does this
serve any purpose now that we release it together with Emacs?  Why not
remove the version number and just say that it is the Lisp Manual
corresponding to Emacs version so-and-so?

Lute.

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lute Kamstra <Lute.Kamstra.lists@xs4all.nl>
> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:49:16 +0200
> 
> The Lisp Manual has its own version number (2.9 currently).  Does this
> serve any purpose now that we release it together with Emacs?  Why not
> remove the version number and just say that it is the Lisp Manual
> corresponding to Emacs version so-and-so?

The ELisp manual is printed as a book, and books have _editions_.  The
2.9 thingy is used as the printed manual's edition (see @titlepage),
whose count is independent of the Emacs version documented in that
edition of the manual.  The edition is printed on the first pages of
the manual's printed copy.

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

[Lute Kamstra]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Lute Kamstra <Lute.Kamstra.lists@xs4all.nl>
>> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:49:16 +0200
>> 
>> The Lisp Manual has its own version number (2.9 currently).  Does this
>> serve any purpose now that we release it together with Emacs?  Why not
>> remove the version number and just say that it is the Lisp Manual
>> corresponding to Emacs version so-and-so?
>
> The ELisp manual is printed as a book, and books have _editions_.  The
> 2.9 thingy is used as the printed manual's edition (see @titlepage),
> whose count is independent of the Emacs version documented in that
> edition of the manual.  The edition is printed on the first pages of
> the manual's printed copy.

Why not let the edition of the manual equal the version of Emacs?
When you see edition 2.5 of the Lisp manual, that probably doesn't
tell you much.  The first thing you will do is figure out to which
Emacs version that corresponds.  (I guess the same goes for the
edition of the Emacs manual.)

Lute.

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Lute Kamstra <Lute.Kamstra.lists@xs4all.nl>
> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:40:50 +0200
> 
> 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.

> 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".

> 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.

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

[Lute Kamstra]

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.

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

[Richard Stallman]

    Why not let the edition of the manual equal the version of Emacs?

They do not necessarily correspond in a simple way.

I'm not going to change this, so please drop the issue.

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Lute Kamstra <Lute.Kamstra.lists@xs4all.nl>
> Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 10:44:01 +0200
> 
> 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?

As long as the manual is not printed, who would see the edition
number?

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

[Lute Kamstra]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> 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?
>
> As long as the manual is not printed, who would see the edition
> number?

C-h i m elisp RET shows me:

   This Info file contains edition 2.9 of the GNU Emacs Lisp Reference
Manual, corresponding to GNU Emacs version 22.1.


Lute.

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lute Kamstra <Lute.Kamstra.lists@xs4all.nl>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:34:34 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > As long as the manual is not printed, who would see the edition
> > number?
> 
> C-h i m elisp RET shows me:
> 
>    This Info file contains edition 2.9 of the GNU Emacs Lisp Reference
> Manual, corresponding to GNU Emacs version 22.1.

I know that.  I don't expect anyone to pay attention to this line,
though.  And if we think it could confuse, we could remove the edition
from this sentence.

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

[Lute Kamstra]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Lute Kamstra <Lute.Kamstra.lists@xs4all.nl>
>> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:34:34 +0200
>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> 
>> > As long as the manual is not printed, who would see the edition
>> > number?
>> 
>> C-h i m elisp RET shows me:
>> 
>>    This Info file contains edition 2.9 of the GNU Emacs Lisp Reference
>> Manual, corresponding to GNU Emacs version 22.1.
>
> I know that.  I don't expect anyone to pay attention to this line,
> though.

Well, it's the first thing you see when you read the manual in info.
I think people will read it.

> And if we think it could confuse, we could remove the edition from
> this sentence.

I'm in favor of that.  What about the patch below?

Lute.


Index: lispref/elisp.texi
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/emacs/emacs/lispref/elisp.texi,v
retrieving revision 1.57
diff -c -r1.57 elisp.texi
*** lispref/elisp.texi	10 Jun 2005 10:03:29 -0000	1.57
--- lispref/elisp.texi	10 Jun 2005 10:42:29 -0000
***************
*** 94,101 ****
  @node Top, Introduction, (dir), (dir)
  @top Emacs Lisp 
  
! This Info file contains edition @value{VERSION} of the GNU Emacs Lisp
! Reference Manual, corresponding to GNU Emacs version @value{EMACSVER}.
  @end ifnottex
  
  @menu
--- 94,101 ----
  @node Top, Introduction, (dir), (dir)
  @top Emacs Lisp 
  
! This Info file contains the GNU Emacs Lisp Reference Manual
! corresponding to GNU Emacs version @value{EMACSVER}.
  @end ifnottex
  
  @menu
Index: lispref/intro.texi
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/emacs/emacs/lispref/intro.texi,v
retrieving revision 1.29
diff -c -r1.29 intro.texi
*** lispref/intro.texi	10 Jun 2005 10:05:22 -0000	1.29
--- lispref/intro.texi	10 Jun 2005 10:42:29 -0000
***************
*** 35,42 ****
--- 35,48 ----
  chapters describe features that are peculiar to Emacs Lisp or relate
  specifically to editing.
  
+ @iftex
    This is edition @value{VERSION} of the GNU Emacs Lisp Reference
  Manual, corresponding to Emacs version @value{EMACSVER}.
+ @end iftex
+ @ifnottex
+   This is the GNU Emacs Lisp Reference Manual corresponding to Emacs
+ version @value{EMACSVER}.
+ @end ifnottex
  
  @menu
  * Caveats::             Flaws and a request for help.

Re: Version of the Lisp Manual.

[Richard Stallman]

    > And if we think it could confuse, we could remove the edition from
    > this sentence.

    I'm in favor of that.  What about the patch below?

I don't think there is any problem here.  Please don't change it
further.

Please let's not spend any more time discussing this.