Typo in Org Manual

Typo in Org Manual

[Sebastian Miele]

In an example for Org table range references it says:

‘@2$1..@4$3’   six fields between these two fields (same as ‘A2..C4’)

However, it are nine fields instead of six.

Re: Typo in Org Manual

[Kyle Meyer]

Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:

> In an example for Org table range references it says:
>
> ‘@2$1..@4$3’   six fields between these two fields (same as ‘A2..C4’)

Oh, that mistake has been around for a long time.

> However, it are nine fields instead of six.

If we were to simply replace "six" with "nine", I think the description
could still be confusing because it's ambiguous whether "between"
includes the ends.  (I would tend to read the above description as
exclusive.)

How about "nine fields between and including these two fields"?  Any
other suggestions?

Re: Typo in Org Manual

[Sebastian Miele]

Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:
>
> Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > In an example for Org table range references it says:
> >
> > ‘@2$1..@4$3’   six fields between these two fields (same as ‘A2..C4’)
>
> Oh, that mistake has been around for a long time.
>
> > However, it are nine fields instead of six.
>
> If we were to simply replace "six" with "nine", I think the
> description could still be confusing because it's ambiguous whether
> "between" includes the ends. (I would tend to read the above
> description as exclusive.)

At least for me, "nine" would not be confusing at all, because among the
sensible interpretations of the range specification, "nine" uniquely
identifies the maximally inclusive one.

If it were a problem, then the preceding and following examples all have
the same problem, too, except maybe the hline example.

> How about "nine fields between and including these two fields"? Any
> other suggestions?

In my opinion this is not necessary. The examples (assuming "nine"
instead of "six") make it clear enough, that always the maximally
inclusive sensible interpretation of the range specification is used.

But how about instead changing the first sentence of the "Range
references" section from

  You may reference a rectangular range of fields by specifying two
  field references connected by two dots ‘..’.

to

  You may reference a rectangular range of fields, including the ends,
  by specifying two field references connected by two dots ‘..’.

?

Re: Typo in Org Manual

[Sebastian Miele]

Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:
>
> But how about instead changing the first sentence of the "Range
> references" section from
>
>   You may reference a rectangular range of fields by specifying two
>   field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>
> to
>
>   You may reference a rectangular range of fields, including the ends,
>   by specifying two field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>
> ?

I think even better would be to just add the following after the
sentence mentioned above:

  The ends are included in the range.

Re: Typo in Org Manual

[Nick Dokos]

Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:

> Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> But how about instead changing the first sentence of the "Range
>> references" section from
>>
>>   You may reference a rectangular range of fields by specifying two
>>   field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>>
>> to
>>
>>   You may reference a rectangular range of fields, including the ends,
>>   by specifying two field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>>
>> ?
>
> I think even better would be to just add the following after the
> sentence mentioned above:
>
>   The ends are included in the range.
>
>

Yes, a general statement (outside of this particular example) seems
like a good idea. Then changing the "six" to "nine" does not need any
further elaboration.

-- 
Nick

"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache
invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors." -Martin Fowler

Re: Typo in Org Manual

[Kyle Meyer]

Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:

> Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:

>> If we were to simply replace "six" with "nine", I think the
>> description could still be confusing because it's ambiguous whether
>> "between" includes the ends. (I would tend to read the above
>> description as exclusive.)
>
> At least for me, "nine" would not be confusing at all, because among the
> sensible interpretations of the range specification, "nine" uniquely
> identifies the maximally inclusive one.

Fair enough.

> If it were a problem, then the preceding and following examples all have
> the same problem, too, except maybe the hline example.

Hmm, I looked over those before sending the email and didn't find any of
them ambiguous.  Perhaps I'm just inclined to read "between" ambiguously
and gloss over everything else.  Either way...

Later Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:

> Sebastian Miele <sebastian.miele@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> But how about instead changing the first sentence of the "Range
>> references" section from
>>
>>   You may reference a rectangular range of fields by specifying two
>>   field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>>
>> to
>>
>>   You may reference a rectangular range of fields, including the ends,
>>   by specifying two field references connected by two dots ‘..’.
>>
>> ?
>
> I think even better would be to just add the following after the
> sentence mentioned above:
>
>   The ends are included in the range.

... this sounds good to me.  I went with that, along with replacing
"six" with "nine".

Thanks for the suggestion and for catching the error.