From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Typo in search.texi V1.65
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:04:05 -0400
Message-ID: <E1E4PeH-0000Xh-Co@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1050813112109.327A-100000@acm.acm>
	<ur7cym38i.fsf@gnu.org> <8764u9ccoo.fsf@jurta.org>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1124055052 30430 80.91.229.2 (14 Aug 2005 21:30:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:30:52 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 14 23:30:37 2005
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1E4Q3a-00079U-2H
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:30:14 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1E4Q6u-000734-O9
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:33:40 -0400
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1E4Q6O-0006ub-FM
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:33:08 -0400
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1E4Q6N-0006tw-Ev
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:33:07 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E4Q2i-0005P4-7t
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:29:20 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1E4Pvw-000486-Cl
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:22:20 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1E4PeH-0000Xh-Co; Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:04:05 -0400
Original-To: Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org>
In-reply-to: <8764u9ccoo.fsf@jurta.org> (message from Juri Linkov on Sun, 14
	Aug 2005 11:05:27 +0300)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:42042
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:42042

    Wouldn't it be better to ispell-check the whole Info manual than to catch
    typos one by one?

That question, as formulated, makes no sense.  A question about "which
one is better" presumes that one person or group is faced with a
choice between options--but there is no such person or group in this
situation.

However, if you want to suggest ispell checking the manuals, I agree
that would be useful to do.  Would you like to start?

good suggestion.