[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#17567: 24.4.50; doc string of `define-derived-mode'
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#17567: 24.4.50; doc string of `define-derived-mode' |
Date: |
Sat, 25 Sep 2021 21:46:00 +0300 |
> From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>
> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 11:01:45 -0700
> Cc: drew.adams@oracle.com, 17567@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > Thanks, but IMO talking about "unquoted symbols" makes this text
> > confusing. Why did you need to say that? My suggestion is to remove
> > those sentences, they aren't needed.
>
> Oh, I thought it made it more clear. As a user of this function, I
> basically just want to know if I need to put:
>
> :syntax-table foo-syntax-table
>
> or
> :syntax-table 'foo-syntax-table
The first is a variable, the second is a symbol. "Unquoted symbol" is
something that causes at least me to raise a brow.
> I'm fine with saying nothing, for the simple fact that these features
> aren't used that much, and it's easy to just try both variants to see
> which work. But I think it would be better to say something if we can
> come up with something clear.
The thing is, we use this all over the place, so we'd need to say that
everywhere.
bug#17567: [External] : Re: bug#17567: 24.4.50; doc string of `define-derived-mode', Drew Adams, 2021/09/25
- bug#17567: [External] : Re: bug#17567: 24.4.50; doc string of `define-derived-mode', Eli Zaretskii, 2021/09/25
- bug#17567: [External] : Re: bug#17567: 24.4.50; doc string of `define-derived-mode', Drew Adams, 2021/09/25
- bug#17567: [External] : Re: bug#17567: 24.4.50; doc string of `define-derived-mode', Eli Zaretskii, 2021/09/25
- bug#17567: [External] : Re: bug#17567: 24.4.50; doc string of `define-derived-mode', Drew Adams, 2021/09/25
- bug#17567: [External] : Re: bug#17567: 24.4.50; doc string of `define-derived-mode', Eli Zaretskii, 2021/09/25
- bug#17567: [External] : Re: bug#17567: 24.4.50; doc string of `define-derived-mode', Drew Adams, 2021/09/25