bug#52765: 26.3; Elisp manual, use of the term "field"

bug#52765: 26.3; Elisp manual, use of the term "field"

[Drew Adams]

[The Emacs manual uses the term "field" in several different ways, in
different contexts.  That's OK, though you might consider adding a
Glossary entry for the term and give brief definitions of those main
meanings there.]

In any case, this bug report is about the Elisp manual.  There, "field"
is used very little, except in node `Fields'.  My suggestion is to use
"field" in that manual only with the meaning presented in that node.
The other occurrences of "field" in the manual could usefully employ a
different word, to avoid confusion.

FWIW, this occurred to me when I saw mention in an Emacs mailing list
that thing-at-point will now optionally respect a field at point.  That
makes it important that Elisp coders have some doc about fields.  I was
happy to find that the Elisp manual already provides that.

(BTW, it would be good if the Elisp manual, like the Emacs manual, had a
glossary node.)

In GNU Emacs 26.3 (build 1, x86_64-w64-mingw32)
 of 2019-08-29
Repository revision: 96dd0196c28bc36779584e47fffcca433c9309cd
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 10.0.19042
Configured using:
 `configure --without-dbus --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32
 --without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-O2 -static -g3''

bug#52765: 26.3; Elisp manual, use of the term "field"

[Eli Zaretskii]

tags 52765 wontfix
close 52765
thanks

> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2021 01:25:03 +0000
> 
> In any case, this bug report is about the Elisp manual.  There, "field"
> is used very little, except in node `Fields'.  My suggestion is to use
> "field" in that manual only with the meaning presented in that node.
> The other occurrences of "field" in the manual could usefully employ a
> different word, to avoid confusion.

I've now reviewed all the uses of "field" in the ELisp manual, and I
don't see anything problematic with that.  Moreover, replacing it with
something else would produce in many cases awkward and potentially
confusing wording.

There's no need to be afraid of using the word "field" in its natural
meaning just because we have a feature by that name.

Closing.