RE: [External] : menu-item uses no dot period before item-property-list in examples

[uzibalqa]

------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, July 18th, 2023 at 5:25 AM, uzibalqa <uzibalqa@proton.me> wrote:


> ------- Original Message -------
> On Tuesday, July 18th, 2023 at 4:56 AM, uzibalqa uzibalqa@proton.me wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > ------- Original Message -------
> > On Tuesday, July 18th, 2023 at 4:36 AM, Drew Adams drew.adams@oracle.com 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > > > > So why bother users in the manual why that is never actually used.
> > > > > > (menu-item item-name real-binding item-property-list)
> > > > > 
> > > > > I hope you meant this, which is not the same thing:
> > > > > (menu-item item-name real-binding
> > > > > . item-property-list)
> > > > > 
> > > > > item-property-list is not an element of the
> > > > > overall list. It's "spliced" into that list,
> > > > > as its tail.
> > > > 
> > > > Actual code implementations using menu-item does not include
> > > > '.' before 'item-property-list'.
> > > > (menu-item item-name real-binding . item-property-list)
> > > 
> > > Look again. item-property-list must be a list.
> > > That list is not included as an element in
> > > the list that starts (menu-item....
> > > 
> > > Instead, the elements of item-property-list
> > > are included as elements of list (menu-item....
> > > That's apparently what you're not getting.
> 
> 
> Right, there is just a single list (menu-item.... with
> elements in item-property-list appended to the list (menu-item....
> 
> > > Example:
> > > 
> > > '(menu-item "Load" diredp-load-this-file
> > > :help "Load this Elisp file")
> > > 
> > > item-name is "Load".
> > > real-binding is diredp-load-this-file
> > > item-property-list is
> > > this 2-element list: (:help
> > > "Load this Elisp file")
> > > 
> > > You do not see this:
> > > 
> > > '(menu-item "Load" diredp-load-this-file
> > > (:help "Load this Emacs Lisp file"))
> > > ^ ^
> > > 
> > > which is equal to this:
> > > 
> > > '(menu-item "Load" diredp-load-this-file
> > > . ((:help "Load this Emacs Lisp file")))
> > > ^ ^ ^
> > > 
> > > What you do see is equal to this:
> > > 
> > > '(menu-item "Load" diredp-load-this-file
> > > . (:help "Load this Emacs Lisp file"))
> > > 
> > > Now ask yourself why the syntax spec
> > > shows a dot before item-property-list.
> > > 
> > > If you still don't get it, take a break,
> > > stand on your head for a few minutes, run
> > > around the block, then study this again...
> > > till you do.
> > > 
> > > When you finally get it, go look at the
> > > Emacs documentation that introduces lists
> > > and their notation. You'll find it very
> > > clear, I think. All of this is explained.
> > > 
> > > And yes, you should read the basics, such
> > > as notation, before you start trying to
> > > interpret the use of such notation in the
> > > doc. E.g., before you try to interpret the
> > > presentation of the syntax of extended menu
> > > items, learn about Lisp dot notation.
> > > 
> > > And as has also been said, this isn't just
> > > a doc notational convention. It's in fact
> > > the actual, effective, real-life Lisp list
> > > syntax.

The documentation would benefit form some real-life Lisp list
syntax.  Currently I find it short and far from real-life.

 
> > Will check things out.
> > 
> > > Crawl, then walk, before trying to run.
> > > That way, you'll find that running isn't
> > > so difficult, mysterious, confusing, scary,
> > > or user-unfriendly.
> > > 
> > > And that way maybe you'll stop kvetching
> > > that you're "drowning" and that folks need
> > > to quickly line up and start saving you.
> > > 
> > > Don't presume that those trying to help you
> > > don't get it. You're not the first person
> > > to learn Lisp, and you're not the first one
> > > that people here, and Emacs itself, has
> > > helped.
> 
> 
> Have looked at the reference manual section
> 
> 2.4.6.2 Dotted Pair Notation
> 
> I do view it as very comprehensive. Perhaps it can be elaborated
> about the thing happening with
> 
> (menu-item item-name real-binding . item-property-list)
> 
> Or do you think it is good enough for understanding the above
> clause readily without expert experience?
> 
>