Re: Common Lisp Emulation vs Common Lisp Extensions

[Jean-Christophe Helary <jean.christophe.helary@gmail.com>]

Thank you Eli for the reply.
	
> 2016/05/29 0:59、Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> のメール：
> 
>> From: Jean-Christophe Helary <jean.christophe.helary@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 22:39:46 +0900
>> 
>> The Elisp Reference points at a "Common Lisp Extensions" document or chapter without specifying where to find that document.
>> 
>> Cf. p2 of the PDF (Lisp History) and 6 other references in the manual.
>> 
>> It looks like the correct reference is: "GNU Emacs Common Lisp Emulation" according to:
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/cl.html
>> 
>> The Emacs Manual uses the same reference (p. 526 of the PDF)
>> 
>> It would be good to fix the two manuals to properly reference the document.
> 
> Are you looking at the PDF versions of the manuals,

As I wrote, I am using the PDF version of the Elisp Reference and of the Emacs Manual.

> or at HTML
> versions?

There is no PDF version for the CL, so I gave the URL.

>  Each one has a different title name.  The PDF (and the
> printed version) uses "Common Lisp Extensions", which is what appears
> on the title page of the printed CL library manual.

When I check here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/cl.html

I don't find anything but an HTML version for the CL library. Where did you get your printed version ?

>  The HTML version
> uses the name of the top node, which is "GNU Emacs Common Lisp
> Emulation".

Indeed, and the table of contents for info gives me "Partial Common Lisp support for Emacs Lisp."

In the Elisp nodes I get "See Lists as Sets(cl)" when in the PDF it is "See Section “Lists as Sets” in Common Lisp Extensions."

> Does this information help to understand the confusion?

Definitely. It is a serious mess :)

> 
>> Also, the web page for the GNU Emacs Manual Online uses "GNU Emacs Common Lisp support." to describe the package and the page that is linked to from there is "CL manual".
> 
> I see nothing wrong in the reference, it could be a Texinfo problem in
> how it processes cross-references for HTML versions.  I also don't see
> "GNU Emacs Common Lisp support.", can you point to it more
> specifically with a complete URL?

http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/

Check the description for "CL".

> In general, for all of the problems you mention, it is better to
> provide more specific references, like the context or the name of the
> node/chapter where the reference lives.  Otherwise, it is very hard to
> look for these instances.

I understand. Sorry for the confusion.

In the end, it still seems to me that we should have a better reference system and that the media (PDF/info/HTML/print) should not modify the way the reference looks, only the way it is accessed (links for info/html/pdf eventually, formal reference for pdf/print).


On a separate note, now that I am checking the info system, I see that the info root menu is not very helpful either.

For exemple, instead of having:

Emacs
* Org Mode              Outline-based notes management and organizer
* Emacs                 The extensible self-documenting text editor.

etc.

Wouldn't it be better to have the actual name of the nodes instead of an abridged name ?

When I open "Org Mode", I get:

(org)Top                                                                                                                       

Org Mode Manual
***************

and below that:

* Menu:

* Introduction          Getting started
* Document structure    A tree works like your brain

Where "Introduction", "Document structure" etc are all the names of their respective nodes.

If we applied that to the info root menu we'd have:

Emacs
* Org Mode Manual              Outline-based notes management and organizer
* The Emacs Editor                 The extensible self-documenting text editor.
* The GNU Emacs FAQ             Frequently Asked Questions about Emacs.

and eventually:

* GNU Emacs Common Lisp Emulation

instead of "CL".

Of course that uses a lot more space than the current state of affairs, but that could suggest manual writers to adopt a standard when they name their manuals.


Jean-Christophe