[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#32037: simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions"
From: |
Robert Pluim |
Subject: |
bug#32037: simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions" |
Date: |
Mon, 02 Jul 2018 21:59:58 +0200 |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> @findex * @r{(multiplication)}
>> The third line of the example consists of the body of the function
>> -definition. (Most functions' definitions, of course, are longer than
>> +definition. (Most function definitions, of course, are longer than
>> this.) In this function, the body is the list, @code{(* 7 number)}, which
>> says to multiply the value of @var{number} by 7. (In Emacs Lisp,
>> @code{*} is the function for multiplication, just as @code{+} is the
>
> Thanks, but AFAIK the original wording is perfectly correct English
> (if not more correct). Why did you think it needed to be changed?
The original is fine. I wish there was less going around changing
perfectly good sentences in our documentation (as opposed to editing
for clarity).
Robert