RE: Why isn't C-m listed here?

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > As the topic says: Why isn't C-m listed here:
> > and if it was, what would its description be? Alias for <RET>?
>
> It's not an alias for RET, it _is_ RET.
>
> RET == C-m

It is good, but not enough, to teach others here (emacs-devel). Pointing
something out here cannot be an alternative to the manual teaching the same
thing or (in this case) facilitating access to the same information.

Precisely because this user was missing that knowledge, C-m (and C-i, C-j,
and so on) should appear explicitly in the index. And the index link should
target a manual section where the equivalence is pointed out.

In general (please don't follow up with "Where do you draw the line?"), when
there are multiple names for the same thing, an index should provide
corresponding multiple entries. That applies even for incorrect names and
faux amis. Users look things up under different names, and they don't always
think in terms of the standard terminology.

That is why "paste" belongs in the index, pointing to a section about
yanking, even though "paste" and "yank" are not exactly synonymous. It is
why "window, window-manager" and "window-manager window" could also be index
entries, pointing to a section that described Emacs frames and the term
"frame".

I'm sure (i.e. I hope) that I'm preaching to the choir on this, but it's
unfortunately too easy to just answer a question here and not follow up by
improving the manual.

I must say that Eli is very diligent in thinking about what needs to be done
to improve the manual. Practically every time a user mentions in
help-gnu-emacs that s?he couldn't find something in the manual, Eli inquires
about how to make manual lookup easier for that case. Kudos for that, Eli.